llpnn  {Eotonsenb  l^fjite, 

<£t  amtcorum  Quorum 


ilu  dilcniot  lam 

l^obertt  Galantine 

a.  IB.  i^artoarli.  1906 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


HISTORY 


OF 


LATIN    CHRISTIANITY, 


HISTORY 


OF 


LATIN     CHRISTIANITY: 


INCLUDING    THAT    OF 


THE    POPES 


TO 


THE   PONTIFICATE   OF   NICOLAS   V, 


BY   HENRY  HART  MILMAN,   D.D., 

DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S. 


IN  EIGHT   VOLUMES. 
VOLUME  I. 


NEW    YORK: 
W.    J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER. 

1870. 


Cambridge :  Press-work  by  John  Wilson  and  Son. 


I  to. 


v.i 
PREFACE 

TO 

THE   SECOND   EDITION. 


IN  this  edition  I  have  carefully  revised  the  whole  ; 
but  the  corrections  which  I  have  thought  it  necessary 
to  make  are  in  general  confined  to  the  style  and 
language.  Excepting  in  a  few  instances,  I  have  not 
myself  detected  any  important  errors  or  inaccuracies 
as  to  the  facts  in  the  history;  neither  have  such,  as 
far  as  I  know,  been  pointed  out  by  friendly  or  un- 
friendly critics  —  not  indeed  that  I  have  any  right  to 
say  that  I  have  met  with  unfriendly  critics.  The  ad- 
ditions which  I  have  made  —  in  some  cases  derived 
from  older  books,  which  had  not  fallen  in  my  way,  but 
chiefly  from  books  published  since  the  appearance  of 
the  first  edition  —  are  almost  entirely  confined  to  the 
notes.  Among  these,  besides  the  "  Life  of  Moham- 
med," by  Dr.  Sprenger,  I  may  specially  name  one 
or  two  original  pieces  in  the  new  volume  of  Pertz, 
"  Monumenta  Germania?  ;  "  the  "  Chronicon  Placen- 
tinum,"  from  the  British  Museum  ;  and  the  curious 
documents  relating  to  the  "  Friends  of  God,"  published 
by  Dr.  Carl  Schmidt. 


PREFACE 

TO 

THE   FIRST   EDITION. 


THE  History  of  Latin  Christianity  is  a  continuation 
of  "  The  History  of  Christianity  to  the  Extinction  of 
Paganism  in  the  Roman  Empire."  But  Latin  Chris- 
tianity appears  to  possess  such  a  remarkable  historic 
unity,  that  I  have  thought  fit,  in  order  to  make  this 
work  complete  in  itself,  to  trace  again  its  origin  and 
earlier  development,  and  to  enter  in  some  respects  with 
greater  fulness,  yet  without  unnecessary  repetition,  into 
its  history  during  the  first  four  centuries.  On  one 
extremely  dark  part  of  that  history  a  book  but  recently 
discovered  has  thrown  unexpected  light. 

The  sentence  of  Polybius  which  describes  the  unity, 
and  the  plan  of  his  History  of  Republican  Rome,  might 
be  adopted  by  the  historian  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  Christian  Rome.  "Ovrog  yaQ  evb$  fQyov  x«J  dtd^arog 
evbg  iov  ovfATtavrog,  vTtfQ  rovrov  yQoupeiv  eTtixf^siQtjxaiiev  TOV, 
nwg  xow  rtore,  x«t  8ia  ri  ndvra  ia  yvwQi^o^vct  fifQt]  zrjg  oixov- 

pt'vrjg  vno  TTJV  'Pojuaiav  dwaoreiav  tyivno 1.  iii.  c.  i. 

''  The  work  which  we  have  undertaken  being  one,  the 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION.  vii 

whole  forming  one  great  design,  how,  when,  and  by 
what  means  all  the  known  world  became  subject  to 
the  Roman  rule."  Though  the  great  sphere  of  Latin 
Christianity  was  Western  Europe,  yet,  during  the  first 
seven  or  eight  centuries,  it  is  so  mingled  up  with  the 
religious  history  of  the  Greek  empire ;  the  invasion  of 
Western  Europe  by  the  Mohammedans,  and  the  Cru- 
sades, so  involved  it  again  in  the  affairs  of  the  East ; 
that,  in  its  influence  at  least,  it  extended  to  the  limits 
of  the  known  world. 

My  aim  has  been  to  write  a  history,  not  a  succession 
of  dissertations  on  history ;  to  give  with  as  much  life 
and  reality  as  I  have  been  able,  the  result,  not  the 
process,  of  inquiry.  This,  where  almost  every  event, 
every  character,  every  opinion  has  been  the  subject  of 
long,  intricate,  too  often  hostile  controversy,  was  a  task 
of  no  slight  difficulty.  Where  the  conflicting  author- 
ities have  seemed  to  be  nearly  balanced,  I  have  some- 
times, but  rarely,  admitted  them  into  the  text,  not 
desiring  to  speak  with  certainty,  where  certainty  ap- 
peared unattainable ;  in  general  I  have  reserved  such 
discussions,  when  inevitable,  for  the  notes.  Even  in 
the  notes  I  have  endeavored  to  avoid  two  things  —  a 
polemic  tone  and  prolixity.  I.  —  I  have  cited  the 
names  of  modern  writers,  in  general,  only  when  their 
observations  have  been  remarkable  in  themselves,  as 
original,  or  as  characteristic  of  the  progress  of  opinion. 
II.  —  I  have  usually  contented  myself  with  quoting  the 
authority  which  after  due  consideration  I  have  thought 


viil  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 

it  right  to  follow,  instead  of  occupying  a  large  space 
with  concurrent  or  conflicting  statements.  Nothing 
can  be  more  easy,  now  that  we  possess  such  admirable 
manuals  of  ecclesiastical  history  (especially  the  inval- 
uable one  of  Gieseler),  than  to  heap  together  to  im- 
measurable extent  citations  from  ancient  authors  or  the 
opinions  of  learned  men.  I  notice  this  solely  that  I 
may  not  be  suspected  either  of  the  presumption  of 
having  neglected  the  labors,  or  of  want  of  gratitude 
for  the  aid,  of  that  array  of  writers  who  —  from  the 
Magdeburg  Centuriators,  Baronius  and  his  Continua- 
tors,  through  the  great  French  scholars,  Tillemont, 
Fleury,  Dupin ;  the  Germans,  Mosheim,  Schroeck, 
Neander,  and  countless  others  (where,  alas  I  are  the 
English  historians  of  those  times  ?)  —  have  wrought 
with  such  indefatigable  industry  on  the  annals  of  Chris- 
tianity. I  have  studied  compression  and  condensation, 
rather  than  fulness  and  copiousness,  simply  in  order  to 
bring  the  work  within  reasonable  compass. 


PREFACE  TO  VOLUME  IV. 

FIRST  EDITION. 


I  CANNOT  offer  the  concluding  volumes  of  the 
History  of  Latin  Christianity  without  expressing  my 
grateful  sense  of  the  kind  and  liberal  manner  in  which 
the  former  portion  of  the  work  has  been  generally  re- 
ceived. In  these  volumes  I  trust  that  I  have  not  fallen 
below  my  constant  aim  —  calm  and  rigid  impartiality ; 
the  fearless  exposure  of  the  bad,  full  appreciation  of 
the  good,  both  in  the  institutions  and  in  the  men  who 
have  passed  before  my  view.  I  hope  that  I  may  aver 
without  presumption  that  my  sole  object  is  truth  — 
truth  uttered  in  charity ;  and  where  truth  has  ap- 
peared to  me  unattainable  from  want  of  sufficient 
authorities,  or  from  authorities  balanced  or  contradic- 
tory, I  have  avoided  the  expression  of  any  positive 
opinion.  I  am  unwilling  to  claim  the  authority  of 
history  for  that  for  which  there  is  not  historical  evi- 
dence. I  would  further  remind  the  reader  that  if  the 
course  of  affairs  during  these  ages  should  appear  dark, 
at  times  almost  to  repulsiveness,  still  in  the  dreariest 
and  most  gloomy  period  of  Christian  history  there  was 


X  PREFACE  TO  VOL.  IV.,  FffiST  EDITION. 

always  an  undercurrent  of  humble,  Christian  goodness 
flowing  on,  as  the  Saviour  himself  came,  "  without 
observation,"  the  light  of  which  we  can  discern  but  by 
faint  and  transitory  glimpses. 

Only  one  book,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  appeared  since 
the  publication  of  the  first  part  of  my  work,  which 
has  further  elucidated  any  of  the  subjects  treated  in 
those  volumes  —  the  "  Life  of  Mohammed,"  by  Dr. 
Sprenger.  After  the  perusal  of  that  work,  so  much 
more  full  than  any  former  history  on  the  earlier  and 
more  authentic  traditions  of  the  Prophet,  I  have  the 
satisfaction  to  find  that  though  I  might  be  disposed  to 
add  a  few  sentences,  I  find  nothing  in  my  own  more 
brief  and  rapid  sketch  to  alter  or  to  retract.  More- 
over (I  write  with  diffidence),  it  appears  to  me  that 
Dr.  Sprenger  has  hardly  drawn  the  line,  if  it  can  be 
drawn,  between  the  Historical  and  the  Legendary  in 
the  life  of  Mohammed.  I  cannot  but  think  that  the 
Koran,  after  all,  is  the  one  safe  and  trustworthy  au- 
thority for  the  life,  the  acts,  and  the  aims,  of  the 
founder  of  Islam. 


CONTENTS 


THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 


INTRODUCTION. 

MM 

DESIGN  AND  PLAN  OF  THE  WORK 19 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  FIRST  FOUR  CENTURIES 32 


BOOK  I. 

CHAPTER  I. 

BEGINNING  OF  ROMAN  CHRISTIANITY. 

Roman  Pontificate 41 

Epochs  in  Latin  Christianity 42-47 

Growth  of  Christianity  in  Rome 47 

Obscurity  of  Bishop  of  Rome 50 

67  Persecution  of  Nero 52 

95  of  Domitian ib. 

114  of  Trajan  —  Ignatius  of  Antioch 53 

Church  of  Rome  Greek 54 

African  origin  of  Latin  Christianity 57 

Church  of  Rome  centre  of  Christianity ib. 

of  Christian  controversy 59 

Judaizing  Christianity —  The  Clementina-  •  •  •  • 60 

196  Pope  Victor — Quarto-deciman  controversy 64 

180-193  Reign  of  Commodus  —  Marcia 65 

MontanSsm 68 

Monarchianism 70 

Hippolytus  Bishop  of  Porto 74 

201-219  Pope  Zephyrinus 75 

Pope  Callistus ib. 

235-247  Persecution  of  Maximin  —  Decian  persecution 80 


rii  CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 

1  D.  PAOI 

Cyprian  of  Carthage 82 

254  Novatus  —  Novatian  —  Cornelius  of  Rome  —  The 

Laps! ib. 

Cyprian's  unity  of  the  Church 86 

Dispute  between  Rome  and  Carthage 88 

258  Death  of  Cyprian  —  of  Pope  Xystus 90 

259-804  Dionysius  —  Marcellinus  —  Marcellus 91 


CHAPTER  II. 

ROME    AFTER    THE    CONVERSION    OF    CONSTANTINE. 

312  Conversion  of  Constantino  —  Pope  Silvester 93 

Donation  —  Edict  of  Milan 95 

824-834  Foundation   of    Constantinople  —  Division   of   the 

empire 96 

Latin  Christianity  in  Rome,  and  the  West 97 

825  Trinitarian  controversy  —  1st  period — Council  of 

Nicea 98 

847               2d  period  —  Council  of  Sardica 101 

852  Pope  Liberius —  Council  of  Aries  —  of  Milan-  •  •  •  102 

857  Felix   Antipope  —  Constantius  in  Rome 104 

867  Damasus  and   Ursicinus Ill 

Monasticism  in  Rome  —  Saint  Jerome 112 

384-898  Pope  Siricius  —  First  Decretal 119 

Celibacy  of  the  clergy 120 


BOOK  n. 

CHAPTER  I. 

I.NMK'KNT    I. 

Rome  centre  of  the  West 126 

Succession  of  St.  Peter —  Unity  of  the  Church-  •  •  128 

402  Innocent  I. 134 

404  Innocent  and  Chrysostom 139 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL    I.  xiii 

A.D.  PAS! 

405  Siege  of   Rome   by  Alaric  —  by  Rhadagaisus  — 

Stilicho 143 

410  Capture  by  Alaric  —  Innocent  absent 150 

Restoration  of  Rome —  Greatness  of  the  bishop-  •  •  161 

CHAPTEE  II. 
PKLAGIANISM. 

Pelagianism  —  Pelagius  in  the  East 1 64 

Origin  of  controversy 168 

Augustinianism 1 70 

Sacerdotal  system 172 

Transmission  of  original  sin 1 74 

417  Death  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  —  Zosimus •  •  •  178 

418  Council  of  Carthage  —  Zosimus  retracts 182 

Julianus  of  Eclana 185 

Semi-Pelagianism  —  Cassianus 189 

CHAPTEE    III. 

NESTOBIANISM. 

Nestorianism 195 

418  Death  of  Zosimus  —  Disputed  election ib. 

419  Edict  of  Honorius  —  Boniface  Pope  —  Celestine  I.  •  198 
428  Nestorius  at  Constantinople 206 

Cyril  of  Alexandria 210 

Persecution  of  Jews  —  Hypatia 211 

Cyril  against  Nestorius 216 

Both  parties  look  to  Rome  —  Pope  Celestine 219 

430  Council  of  Rome 221 

430  Nestorius  excommunicated 224 

481   Council  of  Ephesus  —  General  Councils 226 

Memnon  of  Ephesus  —  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem 231 

Decree  of  Council  —  Arrival  of  Syrian  Bishops 236 

Violent  contest  —  Constantinople 239 

Council  of  Chalcedon  —  Pulcheria 242 

Nestorius  abandoned 244 

Treaty  of  Peace 247 

Nestorianism  proscribed 251 


xiv  CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 


CHAPTER    IV. 
LEO  THE  GREAT. 

A.D.  PAQ1 

440  Leo  the  Great 253 

Character  of  Leo  —  Sermons 254 

The  Manicheans  at  Rome 259 

Affairs  of  Africa 261 

Affairs  of  Gaul  —  Hilarius  of  Aries 269 

Affairs  of  Spain  —  Priscillianism 276 

Illyricum  —  The  East 279 

Eutyches  —  Eutychianism 281 

449  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus  —  Death  of  Flavianus-  •  286 

451  Council    of  Chalcedon  —  Condemnation    of  Dios- 

corus 291 

Coequality  of  Constantinople  and  Rome 296 

452  Attila —  Embassy  of  Leo  to  Attila 301 

455  Invasion  of  Genseric  —  Capture  and  pillage  of  Rome  303 

457-461  The  Emperor  Majorian 808 

Three  founders  of  Latin  Christianity  —  Jerome,  Am- 
brose, Augustine 809 


BOOK  HI. 

CHAPTEB  I. 

MONOPHYSmSM. 

Monophysitism 312 

468  Pope  Simplicius  —  Close  of  the  Western  Empire-  •  314 

Church  in  the  East 815 

Simeon  Stylites 818 

457-474  Revolutions  in  Constantinople  —  Death  of  Marcian  820 

Zeno  expelled  by  Basiliscus 321 

482  Henoticon  of  Zeno 823 

Question  of  Roman  supremacy 324 

483  Death  of  Pope  Simplicius  —  Decree  of  Odoacer-  •  •  827 
Felix  III.  Pope  —  Excommunicates  Acacius  of  Con- 
stantinople    328 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I.  xv 

A.D.  PAGB 

484  Acacius  excommunicates  Pope  Felix 331 

Schism  of  forty  years ib. 

Four  parties  in  the  East 333 

495  Macedonius  Bishop  of  Constantinople 334 

505-6  Tumults  in  Constantinople  —  The  Emperor  Anas- 

tasius 388 

510  Deposition  of  Macedonius 339 

513  Constantinople  in  insurrection 340 

514  Revolt  of  Vitalianus  —  Humiliation  of  Anastasius-  •  342 
Influence  of  the  Monks 344 

492  Pope  Gelasius  I. 347 

496  Pope  Anastasius  II. 349 

498  Pope  Symmachus 850 


CHAPTER    II. 

CONVEKSION  OF  THB  TEUTONIC  RACES. 

Conversion  of  the  Teutonic  races 353 

Conversion  of  Germans  within  the  Empire 855 

Teutonic  character 356 

Teutonic  religion  —  Woden 357 

Human  sacrifices  —  Animal  sacrifices  —  Holy  groves  360 

Priesthood 362 

Teutons  encounter  Christianity 364 

Christ  a  God  of  battle 365 

No  Teutonic  priesthood  in  their  migrations 366 

Effect  of  invasion  on  Christians 867 

Teutons  in  the  Roman  empire 370 

Successive  conversion  of  the  tribes 371 

Arianism  of  first  converts ib. 

Ulphilas 372 

History  of  conversion  unknown,  except  of  Burgun- 

dians 876 

Conversion  of  Franks 378 

496  Clovis  the  only  orthodox  sovereign  • • 382 

Religious  wars 384 

Influence  of  clergy  —  Clergy  Latin 386 

Effects  of  conversion  on  Teutons 389 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  L 

A.D.  PAOI 

Effects  of  conversion   on  moral  purity  —  German 

character  in  this  respect 390 

Merovingian  kings 395 

Christianity  barbarizes-  •••'« 397 

Increase  of  sacerdotal  power  —  Bishops  a  separate 

order 399 


CHAPTER  III. 
THBODOBIC  THB  OSTROGOTH. 

Ostrogothic  kingdom  in  Italy 403 

Odoacer t&. 

Union  of  the  races  imperfect  —  Division  of  lands-  •  406 

Theodoric  —  Peace  of  Italy 408 

Theodoric's  religious  rule 412 

499  Contested  election  for  the  popedom 416 

Theodoric  in  Rome  —  Charges  against  Symmachus  418 

Tumults  in  Rome  —  Synod 419 

Decree  of  the  Palmary  Synod 421 

Affairs  of  the  East 422 

514  Pope  Hormisdas 423 

The  Emperor  Anastasius ib. 

Papal  embassy  to  Constantinople 424 

518  Death  of  Anastasius  the  Emperor 429 

618  Accession  of  Justin t&. 

Close  of  the  schism 481 

Prosperity  of  Theodoric 432 

Rumors  of  conspiracies 434 

State  of  Theodoric's  family 436 

Charges  against  Albinus 438 

525  Correspondence  with  the  East  —  Mission  of  Pope 

John 439 

Boethius  —  His  death 443 

Death  of  Theodoric 447 

Ravenna 448 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I.  XVll 

CHAPTER  IV. 

JUSTINIAN. 

527  Justinian  —  Theodora 449 

Persian  and  African  Wars 452 

Suppression  of  schools  at  Athens 453 

Conquest  of  Africa 455 

Ostrogothic    kingdom  —  Death    of   Athalaric  —  of 

Amalasuntha 456 

Witiges  king ib. 

626-535  Popes  Felix  IV.,  Boniface  II.,  John  II.,  Agapetus.  •  457 

Agapetus  in  Constantinople 459 

536  Conquest  of  Italy  by  Justinian 461 

Rome  surrendered  to  Belisarius   ib. 

Vigilius •  462 

537  Silverius  degraded  —  Vigilius  Pope 463 

544  The  three  Chapters 465 

Vigilius  summoned  to  Constantinople 466 

548  Tergiversation  of  Vigilius 467 

554  Banishment —  Death 470 

556  Pope  Pelagius  I. 471 

Totila ib. 

The  eunuch  Narses 473 

Popes  John  III.,  Benedict  I.,  Pelagius  II. 474 

CHAPTER  V. 

CHRISTIAN  JURISPRUDENCE. 

Christian  jurisprudence 479 

effects  of  Christianity  on ib. 

I.  Jurisprudence  of  Roman  empire t&. 

II.  Barbaric  codes 480 

III.  Christian  jurisprudence 481 

Supremacy  of  the  Emperor 482 

I.  Justinian  code 483 

Justinian  a  Christian  emperor 485 

Preamble  —  Laws  for  the  clergy  —  Bishops ••••  ib. 

Roman  law  purely  Roman 489 

VOL.  i.  2 


xviii  CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 

A  -D .  P A01 

A.  Law  of  persons 491 

Freemen  and  slaves ib. 

Law  of  slavery 493 

Slave-trade 495 

Christian  family ib. 

Parental  power ib. 

Marriage 496 

Prohibited  degrees 497 

Spiritual  relationship 498 

Divorce 500 

Concubinage 503 

Parental  power 504 

Infanticide 505 

B.  Law  of  Property-  •  -r 507 

Church   property 508 

C.  Criminal  Law 511 

Some  crimes  more  severely  punished ib. 

Crime  of  heresy 512 

II.  Barbaric  codes 514 

Of  Theodoric  and  Athalaric  —  King  supreme-  •  •  515 

Difference  of  ranks —  Clergy  co-legislators 517 

Lombard  laws  —  Salic  law  —  Gothic  law ib. 

Bishops  in  popular  and  judicial  assemblies 524 

A.  Law  of  persons 527 

Freemen  and  slaves  —  Emancipation ib. 

Law  of  marriage 528 

B.  Law  of  property 535 

Church  property ib. 

C.  Criminal   law 537 

Asylum  —  Ordeal 539 

HI.  Church  jurisprudence 542 

Clergy  legislative  and  executive 543 

Rome  sole  patriarchate  of  the  West 544 

Clergy  Latin 546 

Penitential  system 550 

Effects  on  the  clergy  —  on  the  community  551 


HISTORY 


LATIN    CHRISTIANITY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

DESIGN  AND  PLAN  OF  THE  WORK. 

THE  great  event  in  the  history  of  our  religion 
and  of  mankind,  during  many  centuries  after  the 
extinction  of  Paganism,  is  the  rise,  the  development, 
and  the  domination  of  Latin  Christianity.  Latin  Chris. 
Though  the  religion  of  Christ  had  its  ori-  tianity- 
gin  among  a  Syrian  people — though  its  Divine  Au- 
thor spoke  an  Aramaic  dialect  —  Christianity  was 
almost  from  the  first  a  Greek  religion.  Its  Christianity 

11  •       in    its    Orl8in 

primal  records  were  all,  or  nearly  all,  writ-  Greek, 
ten  in  the  Greek  language ;  it  was  promulgated  with 
the  greatest  rapidity  and  success  among  nations  either 
of  Greek  descent,  or  those  which  had  been  Grecised 
by  the  conquests  of  Alexander ;  its  most  flourish- 
ins  churches  were  in  Greek  cities.  Greek  was  the 

o 

commercial  language  in  which  the  Jews,  through 
whom  it  was  at  first  disseminated,  and  who  were 
even  now  settled  in  almost  every  province  of  the 
Roman  world,  carried  on  their  intercourse.  Prim- 
itive Christianity  no  doubt  continued  to  speak  in 


20  GREEK  CHRISTIANITY.  INTROD. 

Syriac  to  vast  numbers  of  disciples  in  the  Syrian 
provinces  ;  it  spread  eastward  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, in  Babylonia  and  beyond  the  Euphrates,  into 
regions  where  Greek  ceased  to  be  the  common 
tongue.  Oriental  influences,  influences  even  from 
the  remoter  East,  worked  into  its  doctrine  and  into 
its  system  ;  yet  even  these  flowed  in  chiefly  or  in 
great  part  through  Greek  channels.  The  Indian 
Monasticism1  had  already  been  domiciliated  in  Pal- 
estine and  among  the  Egyptian  Jews.  Oriental  and 
Egyptian  notions  had  found  their  way  into  the 
Greek  philosophy.  Among  the  earlier  Christian 
converts  were  some  of  these  partially  orientalized 
Greek  philosophers.  Many  of  the  first  teachers  had 
been  trained  in  their  schools.  In  Antioch,  in  Alex- 
andria, even  in  Ephesus  there  was  something  of  an 
Asiatic  cast  in  the  Greek  civilization. 

Greek  Christianity  could  not  but  be  affected   both 
character  of  in   its    doctrinal    progress    and    in    its    pol- 

Oreek    Chrta- 


.  .    . 

ity  by  its  Greek  origin.  Among  the 
Greeks  had  been  for  centuries  agitated  all  those  pri- 
mary questions  which  lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  re- 
ligions ;  —  the  formation  of  the  worlds  —  the  exist- 
ence and  nature  of  the  Deity  —  the  origin  and  cause 
of  evil,  though  this  seems  to  have  been  studied 
even  with  stronger  predilection  in  the  trans-Eu- 
phratic  East.  Hence  Greek  Christianity  was  insa- 
tiably inquisitive,  speculative.  Confident  in  the  in- 
exhaustible copiousness  and  fine  precision  of  its 

i  Compare,  on  Buddhist  monasticism,  the  very  curious  visitation  of 
the  Buddhist  monasteries  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  the  con- 
tinuation of  earlier  visitations  anterior  to  the  Christian  era,  the  Foe 
Koneki,  translated  by  M.  A.  Re'mnsat,  Paris,  1836;  also  the  recent  more 
popular  work  by  Mr.  Hardy,  Eastern  Monachism,  London,  1850. 


INTROD.        CHARACTER  OF  GREEK  CHRISTIANITY.  21 

language,  it  endured  no  limitation  to  its  curious 
investigations.  As  each  great  question  was  settled 
or  worn  out,  it  was  still  ready  to  propose  new  ones. 
It  began  with  the  Divinity  of  Christ  (still  earlier 
perhaps  with  some  of  the  Gnostic  Cosmogonical  or 
Theophanic  theories),  so  onward  to  the  Trinity :  it 
expired,  or  at  least  drew  near  its  end  as  the  relig- 
ion of  the  Roman  East,  discussing  the  Divine  Light 
on  Mount  Tabor. 

In  their  polity  the  Grecian  churches  were  a  fed- 
eration of  republics,  as  were  the  settlements  of  the 
Jews.  But  they  were  founded  on'  a  religious,  not 
on  a  national  basis;  external  to,  yet  in  their  boun- 
daries, mostly  in  their  aggregative  system,  following 
the  old  commonwealths,  which  still  continued  to  sub- 
sist under  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Prefect  or 
Proconsul,  and  in  later  times  the  distribution  of  the 
Imperial  dioceses.  They  were  held  together  by  com- 
mon sympathies,  common  creeds,  common  sacred 
books,  certain,  as  yet  simple,  but  common  rites, 
common  usages  of  life,  and  a  hierarchy  everywhere, 
in  theory  at  least,  of  the  same  power  and  influence. 
They  admitted  the  Christians  of  other  places  by  some 
established  sign,  or  by  recommendatory  letters.  They 
were  often  bound  together  by  mutual  charitable  sub- 
ventions. Still  each  was  an  absolutely  independent 
community.  The  Roman  East,  including  Greece, 
had  no  capital.  The  old  kingdoms  might  respect 
the  traditionary  greatness  of  some  city,  which  had 
been  the  abode  of  their  kings,  or  which  was  the 
seat  of  a  central  provincial  government:  other  cities, 
from  then1  wealth  and  population,  may  have  as- 
sumed a  superior  rank,  Antioch  in  Syria,  Alexan- 


22  GREEK  CHRISTIANITY.  INTKOD. 

dria  in  Egypt,  Ephesus  in  Asia  Minor.  But  though 
churches  known  or  reputed  to  have  been  founded 
by  Apostles  might  be  looked  on  with  peculiar  re- 
spect, there  was  as  yet  no  subordination,  no  suprem- 
acy ;  their  federal  union  was  a  voluntary  associa- 
tion. Whether  the  internal  constitution  had  become 
more  or  less  rapidly  or  completely  monarchical ; 
whether  the  Bishop  had  risen  to  a  greater  or  less 
height  above  his  co-Presbyters,  the  whole  episcopal 
order,  the  representatives  of  each  church,  were  on 
the  same  level.  The  Metropolitan  and  afterwards 
the  Patriarchal  dignity  was  of  later  growth.  Jeru- 
salem, which  might  naturally  have  aspired  to  the 
rank  of  the  Christian  capital,  at  least  in  the  East, 
had  been  destroyed,  and  remained  desolate  for  many 
years:  it  assumed  only  at  a  later  period  (at  one 
time  it  was  subject  to  Caesarea)  even  the  Patri- 
archal rank. 

But  at  the  extinction  of  Paganism,  Greek,  or,  as 
it  may  now  be  called  in  opposition  to  the  West, 
Eastern  Christianity,  had  almost  ceased  to  be  ag- 
Not  aggres-  gressive  or  creative.  Except  the  contested 
conversion  of  the  Bulgarians,  later  of  the 
Russians,  and  a  few  wild  tribes,  it  achieved  no 
conquests.  The  Nestorians  alone,  driven  into  exile 
by  cruel  persecutions,  formed  settlements,  and  prop- 
agated their  own  form  of  Christianity  in  Persia, 
India,  perhaps  in  still  more  distant  lands.  The 
Eastern  Church  never  recovered  the  ground  which 
it  had  lost  before  the  revived  Magianism  of  the 
Sassanian  kings  of  Persia;  and  it  was  compelled  to 
retire  within  still  narrowing  bounds  before  trium- 

O 

pliant   Mohammedanism.     The  Greek   hierarchy  had 


IKTROD.        CHARACTER  OF  GREEK  CHRISTIANITY.  23 

now  lost  their  unity  of  action.  The  great  Patriar- 
chates, which  by  this  time  had  been  formed  on  the 
authority  of  Councils,  were  involved  in  perpetual 
strife,  or  were  contested  by  rival  bishops,  till  three 
of  them,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  sank  into 
administrators  of  a  tolerated  religion  under  the  Mo- 
hammedan dominion.  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
was  the  passive  victim,  the  humble  slave,  or  the 
factious  adversary  of  the  Byzantine  Emperor :  rarely 
exercised  a  lofty  moral  control  upon  his  despotism. 
The  lower  clergy,  whatever  their  more  secret  benef- 
icent or  sanctifying  workings  on  society,  had  suffi- 
cient power,  wealth,  rank,  to  tempt  ambition,  or  to 
degrade  to  intrigue;  not  enough  to  command  the 
public  mind  for  any  great  salutary  purpose ;  to  re- 
press the  inveterate  immorality  of  an  effete  age  ;  to 
reconcile  jarring  interests ;  to  mould  together  hostile 
races :  in  general  they  ruled,  where  they  did  rule, 
by  the  superstitious  fears,  rather  than  by  the  rever- 
ence and  attachment  of  a  grateful  people.  They 
sank  downward  into  the  common  ignorance,  and 
yielded  to  that  worst  barbarism — a  worn  out  civili- 
zation. Monasticism  withdrew  a  great  num-  Greek  Monaa. 
ber  of  those  who  might  have  been  ener- ac 
getic  and  useful  citizens  into  barren  seclusion  and 
religious  indolence  ;  but  except  where  the  monks 
formed  themselves,  as  they  frequently  did,  into  fierce 
political  or  polemic  factions,  they  had  little  effect  on 
the  condition  of  society.  They  stood  aloof  from  the 
world,  the  anchorites  in  their  desert  wildernesses, 
the  monks,  in  their  jealously-barred  convents ;  and 
secure,  as  they  supposed,  of  their  own  salvation, 
left  the  rest  of  mankind  to  inevitable  perdition. 


24  GREEK  CHRISTIANITY.  IHTROD. 

Greek  theology  still  maintained  its  speculative  ten- 
Qreek  Theoi-  dency ;  it  went  on  defining  with  still  more 
°Kr'  exquisite  subtlety  the  Godhead  and  the  na- 

ture of  Christ.  The  interminable  controversy  still 
lengthened  out,  and  cast  forth  sect  after  sect  from 
the  enfeebled  community.  The  great  Greek  writers, 
Athanasius,  Basil,  the  Gregories,  had  passed  away 
and  left  only  unworthy  successors ;  the  splendid  pub- 
lic eloquence  had  expired  on  the  lips  of  Chrysostom. 
There  was  no  writer  who  laid  strong  hold  on  the 
imagination  or  reason  of  men,  except  the  author  of 
that  extraordinary  book,  ascribed  to  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  of  which  perhaps  the  remote  influence 
was  greater  in  the  West  than  in  the  Byzantine 
empire.  John  of  Damascus,  the  powerful  adversary 
of  Iconoclasm,  is  a  splendid  exception,  not  merely 
on  account  of  the  polemic  vigor  shown  in  that  con- 
troversy, but  as  a  theologian  doubtless  the  ablest 
of  his  late  age.  The  Greek  language  gradually,  but 
slowly,  degenerated;  at  length,  but  not  entirely  till 
after  the  fall  of  Constantinople,  it  broke  up  into 
barbarous  dialects ;  but  it  gave  birth  by  fusion  with 
foreign  tongues  to  no  new  language  productive  of 
noble  poetry,  of  oratory,  or  philosophy.  A  rude 
and  premature  reformation,  that  of  Iconoclasm,  at- 
tempted to  overthrow  the  established  traditionary 
faith,  but  offered  nothing  to  supply  its  place  which 
could  either  enlighten  the  mind  or  enthrall  the  re- 
ligious affections  :  it  destroyed  the  images,  but  it 
did  not  reveal  the  Original  Deity,  or  the  Christ  in 
his  pure  and  essential  spirituality.  Greek  Christian- 
ity remained  however,  and  still  remains,  a  separate 
and  peculiar  form  of  faith ;  it  repudiated  all  the  at- 


INTKOD.  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  25 

tempts  of  the  feebler  sovereigns  of  the  East  to  bar- 
ter its  independence  for  succor  against  the  formida- 
ble Turks:  it  is  still  the  religion  of  revived  Greece, 
and  of  the  vast  Russian  empire. 

Latin  Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  seemed  en- 
dowed with  an  inexhaustible  principle  of  j^iin  Chria 
expanding  life.  No  sooner  had  the  North-  tianit;y- 
ern  tribes  entered  within  its  magic  circle,  than  they 
submitted  to  its  yoke :  and,  not  content  with  thus 
conquering  its  conquerors,  it  was  constantly  pushing 
forward  its  own  frontier,  and  advancing  into  the 
strongholds  of  Northern  Paganism.  Gradually  it  be- 
came a  monarchy,  with  all  the  power  of  a  concen- 
trated dominion.  The  clergy  assumed  an  absolute 
despotism  over  the  mind  of  man :  not  satisfied  with 
ruling  princes  and  kings,  themselves  became  princes 
and  kings.  Their  organization  was  coincident  with 
the  bounds  of  Christendom  ;  they  were  a  second 
universal  magistracy,  exercising  always  equal,  assert- 
ing, and  for  a  long  period  possessing,  superior  power 
to  the  civil  government.  They  had  their  own  juris- 
prudence—  the  canon  law, — coordinate  with  and  of 
equal  authority  with  the  Roman  or  the  various  na- 
tional codes,  only  with  penalties  infinitely  more  ter- 
rific, almost  arbitrarily  administered,  and  admitting 
no  exception,  not  even  that  of  the  greatest  tempo- 
ral sovereign.  Western  Monasticism,  in  its  j^^  Monaa. 
general  character,  was  not  the  barren,  idly  tlclsm- 
laborious  or  dreamy  quietude  of  the  East.  It  was 
industrious  and  productive :  it  settled  colonies,  pre- 
served arts  and  letters,  built  splendid  edifices,  fer- 
tilized deserts.  If  it  rent  from  the  world  the  most 
powerful  minds,  having  trained  them  by  its  stern 


26  LATIN  CHBISTIANITT.  I.NTKOD. 

discipline,  it  sent  them  back  to  rule  the  world. 
It  continually,  as  it  were,  renewed  its  youth,  and 
kept  up  a  constant  infusion  of  vigorous  life,  now 
quickening  into  enthusiasm,  now  darkening  into  fa- 
naticism ;  and  by  its  perpetual  rivalry,  stimulating 
the  zeal,  or  supplying  the  deficiencies  of  the  secular 
clergy.  In  successive  ages  it  adapted  itself  to  the 
state  of  the  human  mind.  At  first  a  missionary  to 
barbarous  nations,  it  built  abbeys,  hewed  down  for- 
ests, cultivated  swamps,  enclosed  domains,  retrieved 
or  won  for  civilization  tracts  which  had  fallen  to 
waste  or  had  never  known  culture.  With  St.  Dom- 
inic it  turned  its  missionary  zeal  upon  Christianity 
itself,  and  spread  as  a  preaching  order  throughout 
Christendom;  with  St.  Francis  it  became  even  more 
popular,  and  lowered  itself  to  the  very  humblest  of 
mankind.  In  Jesuitism  it  made  a  last  effort  to 
govern  mankind  by  an  incorporated  caste.  But 
Jesuitism  found  it  necessary  to  reject  many  of  the 
peculiarities  of  Monasticism :  it  made  itself  secular 
to  overcome  the  world.  But  the  compromise  could 
not  endure.  Over  the  Indians  of  South  America 
alone,  but  for  the  force  of  circumstances,  it  might 
have  been  lasting.  In  Eastern  India  it  became  a 
kind  of  Christian  Paganism ;  in  Europe  a  moral 
and  religious  Rationalism,  fatal  both  to  morals  and 
to  religion. 

Throughout  this  period,  then,  of  at  least  ten  cen- 
L»tin  chri»-  tunes,  Latin  Christianity  was  the  religion 
of  the  Western  nations  of  Europe :  Latin 
the  religious  language ;  the  Latin  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  the  religious  code  of  mankind.  Latin 
theology  was  alone  inexhaustibly  prolific,  and  held 


IXTKOD.  CONTROVERSIES.  27 

wide  and  unshaken  authority.  On  most  speculative 
tenets  this  theology  had  left  to  Greek  controversial- 
ists to  argue  out  the  endless  transcendental  ques- 
tions of  religion,  and  contented  herself  with  reso- 
lutely embracing  the  results,  which  she  fixed  in  her 
inflexible  theoiy  of  doctrine.  The  only  controversy 
which  violently  disturbed  the  Western  Church  was 
the  practical  one,  on  which  the  East  looked  almost 
with  indifference,  the  origin  and  motive  principle  of 
human  action — grace  and  free  -will.  This,  from 
Augustine  to  Luther  and  Jansenius,  was  the  inter- 
minable, still  reviving  problem.  Latin  Christian  lit- 
erature, like  Greek,  might  have  seemed  already  to 
have  passed  its  meridian  after  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
Ambrose,  and,  high  above  all,  Augustine.  The  age 
of  true  Latin  poetry,  no  doubt,  had  long  been  over ; 
the  imaginative  in  Christianity  could  only  find  its 
expression  to  some  extent  in  the  legend  and  in  the 
ritual ;  but,  except  in  a  very  few  hymns,  it  was  not 
till  out  of  the  wedlock  of  Latin  with  the  Northern 
tongues,  not  till  after  new  languages  had  been  born 
in  the  freshness  of  youth,  that  there  were  great 
Christian  poets :  poets  not  merely  writing  on  relig- 
ious subjects,  but  instinct  with  the  religious  life  of 
Christianity,  —  Dante,  Ariosto,  Tasso,  Shakspeare, 
Milton,  Calderon,  Schiller.  But  not  merely  did 
Latin  theology  expand  into  another  vast  and  teem- 
ing period,  that  of  the  Schoolmen,  culminating  in 
Aquinas ;  but  Latin  being  the  common  language, 
the  clergy  the  only  learned  body  throughout  Europe, 
it  was  that  of  law  in  both  its  branches ;  of  science, 
of  philosophy,  even  of  history;  of  letters;  in  short, 
of  civilization.  Latin  Christianity,  when  her  time 


28  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  IKTROD. 

was  come,  had  her  great  era  of  art,  not  only  as 
the  preserver  of  the  traditions  of  Greek  and  Roman 
skill  in  architecture,  and  some  of  the  technical  oper- 
ations in  sculpture  and  painting,  but  original  and 
creative.  It  was  art  comprehending  architecture, 
painting,  sculpture,  and  music,  Christian  in  its  full- 
est sense,  as  devoted  entirely  to  Christian  uses,  ex- 
pressive of  Christian  sentiments,  arising  out  of  and 
kindling  in  congenial  spirits  Christian  thought  and 
feeling. 

The  characteristic  of  Latin  Christianity  was  that 
its  character,  of  the  old  Latin  world — a  firm  and  even 
obstinate  adherence  to  legal  form,  whether  of  tra- 
ditionary usage  or  written  statute ;  the  strong  asser- 
tion of,  and  the  severe  subordination  to,  authority. 
Its  wildest  and  most  eccentric  fanaticism,  for  the 
most  part,  and  for  many  centuries,  respected  exter- 
nal unity.  It  was  the  Roman  empire,  again  ex- 
tended over  Europe  by  an  universal  code  and  a 
provincial  government ;  by  a  hierarchy  of  religious 
praetors  or  proconsuls,  and  a  host  of  inferior  officers, 
each  in  strict  subordination  to  those  immediately 
above  them,  and  gradually  descending  to  the  very 
lowest  ranks  of  society :  the  whole  with  a  certain 
degree  of  freedom  of  action,  but  a  restrained  and 
limited  freedom,  and  with  an  appeal  to  the  spiritual 
Caesar  in  the  last  resort. 

Latin  Christianity  maintained  its  unshaken  domin- 
ion until,  what  I  venture  to  call,  Teutonic  Chris- 
tianity,1 aided  by  the  invention  of  paper  and  of 

l  Throughout  the  world,  wherever  the  Teutonic  is  the  groundwork  of 
the  language,  the  Reformation  either  is,  or,  as  in  Southern  Germany, 
has  been  dominant;  wherever  Latin,  Latin  Christianity  has  retained  ita 
ascendency. 


TNTROD.  TEUTONIC  CHRISTIANITY.  29 

printing,  asserted  its  independence,  threw  off  Teutonj0 
the  great  mass  of  traditionary  religion,  and  Christianity- 
out  of  the  Bible  summoned  forth  a  more  simple  faith, 
which  seized  at  once  on  the  reason,  on  the  conscience, 
and  on  the  passions  of  men.  This  faith,  with  a  less 
perfectly  organized  outward  system,  has  exercised  a 
more  profound  moral  control,  through  the  sense  of 
strictly  personal  responsibility.  Christianity1  became 
a  vast  influence  working  irregularly  on  individual 
minds,  rather  than  a  great  social  system,  coerced  by 
a  central  supremacy,  by  an  all-embracing  spiritual  con- 
trol, and  held  together  by  rigid  usage,  or  by  outward 
signs  of  common  citizenship.  Its  multiplicity  and 
variety,  rather  than  its  unity,  was  the  manifestation 
of  its  life  ;  or  rather  its  unity  lay  deeper  in  its  being, 
and  consisted  more  in  intellectual  sympathies,  in  affin- 
ities of  thought  and  feeling,  of  principles  and  motives, 
in  a  more  remote  or  rather  untraceable  kindred  through 
the  common  Father  and  common  Saviour.  Ceremo- 
nial uniformity  seemed  to  retire  into  subordinate  im- 
portance and  estimation.  Books  gradually  became, 
as  far  as  the  instruction  of  the  human  race,  a  coordi- 


1  It  is  obvious  that  I  use  Christianity,  and  indeed  Teutonic  Christianity, 
in  its  most  comprehensive  significance,  from  national  episcopal  churches, 
like  that  of  England,  which  aspires  to  maintain  the  doctrines  and  organi- 
zation of  the  apostolic,  or  immediately  post-apostolic  ages,  onward  to  that 
dubious  and  undefinable  verge  where  Christianity  melts  into  a  high  moral 
theism,  a  faith  which  would  expand  to  purer  spirituality  with  less  distinct 
dogmatic  system;  or  that  which  would  hardly  call  itself  more  than  a 
Christian  philosophy,  a  religious  Rationalism.  I  presume  not,  neither  is  it 
the  office  of  the  historian,  to  limit  the  blessings  of  our  religion  either  in 
this  world  or  the  world  to  come;  "there  is  One  who  will  know  his  own." 
As  an  historian  I  can  disfranchise  none  who  claim,  even  on  the  slightest 
grounds,  the  privileges  and  hopes  of  Christianitj' :  repudiate  none  who  do 
not  place  themselves  without  the  pale  of  believers  and  worshippers  of 
Christ,  or  of  God  through  Christ. 


30  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  INFROD. 

nate  priesthood.  No  longer  rare,  costly,  inaccessible, 
or  unintelligible,  they  descended  to  classes  which  they 
had  never  before  approached.  Eloquence  or  argument, 
instead  of  expiring  on  the  ears  of  an  entranced  but 
limited  auditory,  addressed  mankind  at  large,  flew 
through  kingdoms,  crossed  seas,  perpetuated  and  pro- 
mulgated themselves  to  an  incalculable  extent.  In- 
dividual men  could  not  but  be  working  out  in  their 
own  studies,  in  their  own  chambers,  in  their  own 
minds,  the  great  problems  of  faith.  The  primal  rec- 
ords of  Christianity,  in  a  narrow  compass,  passed  into 
all  the  vernacular  languages  of  the  world,  where  they 
could  not  be  followed  by  the  vast,  scattered,  and  am- 
biguous volumes  of  tradition.  The  clergy  became  less 
and  less  a  separate  body  (the  awakened  conscience  of 
men  refused  to  be  content  with  vicarious  religion 
through  them)  ;  they  ceased  to  be  the  sole  arbiters  of 
man's  destiny  in  another  life :  they  sank  back  into 
society,  to  be  distinguished  only  as  the  models  and 
promoters  of  moral  and  religious  virtue,  and  so  of 
order,  happiness,  peace,  and  the  hope  of  immortality. 
They  derived  their  influence  less  from  a  traditionary 
divine  commission  or  vested  authority,  than  from  their 
individual  virtue,  knowledge,  and  earnest,  if  less  au- 
thoritative, inculcation  of  divine  truth.  Monasticism 
was  rejected  as  alien  to  the  primal  religion  of  the  Gos- 
pel ;  the  family  life,  the  life  of  the  Christian  family, 
resumed  its  place  as  the  highest  state  of  Christian 
grace  and  perfection. 

This  progressive  development  of  Christianity  seems 
Pro(?r«.sive     tne  inevitable  consequence  of  man's  progress 
or chrirtiln-    m  knowledge,  and  in  the  more  general  dis- 
semination   of    that     knowledge.       Human 


IOTEOD.  TEUTONIC  CHRISTIANITY.  31 

thought  is  almost  compelled  to  assert,  and  cannot  help 
asserting,  its  original  freedom.  And  as  that  progress 
is  manifestly  a  law  of  human  nature,  proceeding  from 
the  divine  Author  of  our  being,  this  self-adaptation  of 
the  one  true  religion  to  that  progress  must  have  the 
divine  sanction,  and  may  be  supposed,  without  pre- 
sumption, to  have  been  contemplated  in  the  counsels 
of  Infinite  Wisdom. 

The  full  and  more  explicit  expansion  of  these  views 
on  this  Avatar  of  Teutonic  Christianity  must  await 
its  proper  place  at  the  close  of  our  history. 


BOOK  I. 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  FIRST  FOUR  CENTURIES. 


A.  D 

Bishops  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &c. 

42 
48 

1  St.  Peter  (accord- 
ing to  Jerome). 
2      

Claudius,  year 
2. 

Claudius  in  Britain. 

44 

8      

Death  of  Herod. 

45 

4      

46 

6      

with  Claudius. 
St.  Paul  visits  Jerusalem  with 

47 

6      

Barnabas. 

48 

7      

in  Judea. 

49 

8 

his  uncle.  Herod. 

60 

9      

Council  of  Jerusalem.     1  Epistle 

61 
62 

10 
11      

to  Thessalonians. 

63 

12      

Jews  (Suet.  Claud.)  uncer- 
tain,  but    as    Ajrrippa    in 
Rome  was  in  high  favor,  and 
would   protect  the    Jewish 
interests,   it   was    probably 
after    his    departure    from 
Rome. 

64 

13      

Nero,  Oct.  13. 

65 
66 

14 
16      

Paul  at  Ephesus.    1  Epistle  to 

67 

16      

Corinthians. 
At  Corinth.  Epistle  toGalatians. 

68 

17      

69 

18      

60 

19      

Paul  before  Fc-lir.    Before  Fes- 

61 

20 

tus.     In  M 
Paul  in  Rome,  writes  to  the  Ephe- 

62 
63 

21 
22      

mns. 
Paul  acquitted.   Epistles  to  Phi- 

64 

23      

lippians,  Colossians,    Phile- 
mon. 
Fire  of  Home.  Persecution  of  the 

66 
66 

21 
2-'.      

Christians.       Florus,     Gov- 
ernor of  .ludca. 
Nero  goes  to  G  rrece. 

67 

1  Linus  (according  to 

Martyrdom  of  St.  Paul  —  and  of 

Jerome,    Irenae- 

ua,  Eusebius). 

St.  Peter  (?). 

BOOK  I.  CHEONOLOGY  OF  FIRST  FOUR  CENTURIES. 


33 


A.  D. 

Bishops  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &c. 

68 

69 
70 

2  Clement    (accord- 
ing   to    Tertul- 
liau  and    Itufi- 
nus). 
3 
4      

Galba,      Otho, 
Vitellius, 
Vespasian. 

Death  of  Nero,  in  June. 
Capture  and  destruction  of  Je- 

71 

72 
73 

74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

79 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
1  Cletus,    or    Ana- 
clot  us  (?). 
2      

rusalem. 

80 
81 

3 
4      

Death  of  Titos,  Sept.  18 

82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

92 
93 
94 
95 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
1  Clement    (?)    (ac- 
cording to  later 
writers). 
2 
3 
4 

Death   of  the  Consul   Flavius 

96 

6        

97 

98 

7 
8            

Jewish  superstition. 

99 

9       

100 
101 
102 
103 

1  Eyaristus(?). 
2 
3 
4      

Eusebius). 
Pliny  in  Bithynia. 

104 

6      

Pliny's  Letter  to  Trajan. 

105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

6 
7 
8 
9 
1  Alexander  (?). 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Trajan  in  the  East.    Sedition  of 

115 
116 
117 

7 
8 
9      

Hadrian. 

the  Jews  in  Egypt  and  Gy- 
rene.    Martyrdom  of  Igna- 
tius. 

118 
119 
120 
121 
122 

10 
1  Sixtus(?) 
2 
3 
4 

34 


LATIN  CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK  L 


A.D. 

Bishops  of  Borne. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &c. 

128 

6      

Hadrian  at  Athens.     Apologies 

124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
180 
131 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
1  Teleephorus. 
2 
8      

of  Quadratus  and  Aristides. 
Hadrian  in  Egypt. 

132 

4      

Jewish  War. 

133 
184 

6 
6      ,. 

Bar    Coohba    persecutes     the 

185 

7 

Christians. 
End  of  the  Jewish  War. 

186 

8      

187 
188 

9 
10      

£Uia  on  the  ruins  of  Jeruaa- 

139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

1  Hyginus. 
2 
8 
4 
1  PluaL 
2 
8 
4 
6 
6 
7 
8      

Polycarp  in  Rome. 

161 

9      

Marcion  in  Rome.    Justin  Mar- 

152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
1  Anicetus. 
2 
3 
4 
6      

M.  Amelias 

tyr,  Apology  I. 

162 
163 
164 
165 
166 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10      

(Venu). 

Parthian  War  ended.     Marcus 

167 

11      

Aurolius  in  the  East.     Mar- 
tyrdom of  Polycarp  (?). 

168 

1  Soter. 

War.    Justin  Martyr. 
Apology  of  Athenagoras. 

169 

2      

Death  of  Verus. 

170 
171 

8 
4      

172 

6      

Apology  of  Melito  B.  of  Corinth, 

178 

174 

6 
7      

Euseb.  H.  E.  it.,  28. 
Battle    with      Quadi  —  Storm 

176 
176 
177 

8 
9 

1  Elentherius       (or 

thought  miraculous. 
Martyrs  of  Lyons. 

178 

2     176)' 

BOOK  I.     CHRONOLOGY  OF  FIKST  FOUR  CENTURIES. 


35 


A.D. 

Bishops  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &o. 

179 

180 

3 
4      

181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
1  Victor  (?). 
2      

Pertinar. 

192 

3      

193 

4      

194 

5      

Montanus,  Priscilla  and  Max. 

195 
196 

6 

milla. 
Dispute  about  Easter.  —  Euseb. 

197 
193 
199 
200 
201 
202 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

H.  E.  T.  24. 
Persecution  of  Severus  in  Egypt 

203 

2          '..... 

Origen  teaches  in  Egypt. 

204 
205 
206 

207 

3 
4 
6 
6      

Tertullian,  Lib.  I.  Adr.  Marcion. 

208 
209 
210 
211 

7 
8 
9 
10      

Caracalla,  Geta. 

He  is  now  a  Montanist. 

212 

n    

Origen  at  Rome.    Tertullian  ad 

213 
214 
215 
216 
217 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16      

Macrinus. 

Scapulam  (?). 

218 

17      

Elagabalus. 

fflppolytus  bishop  of  Porto. 

219 
220 
221 
2*>2 

1  Callistus. 
2 
3 
4      

22& 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 

231 
232 
233 
234 
235 

1  Urbanus. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
1  Pontianus,     July 
22. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6  Anteros  (Pontianus 
died  Sept.  28). 
Anteros        died 
June  13,  236. 

rus. 

Maximinus, 
The  2  Gordians, 
Pupienus  Bal- 
binus. 

Pontianus  banished  to  Sardinia. 
His  Martyrdom  (  ?).    Martyrdom 
ofHippolytus(?). 

36 


LATIN  CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK  I 


A.D. 

Bishop*  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &c. 

236 
237 
238 

1  Fabianus. 
2 
3      

239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 

4 
6 
6 
7 
8 
9      

nior. 

245 
246 
247 
24S 

10 
11 
12 
13      

249 

14      

260 
261 

262 
253 

See  racant. 
1  Corueliu*,  J  une  4. 
d.  Sept.  14. 
1  Lucius. 
1  Stephen. 

Galltu. 

St.  Cyprian. 
Death  of  Origen. 

254 

2      

265 
266 

8 

4 

lerianuB. 

>    vati;in  Anlipope. 

257 

Sixtos  n.,  Martyr, 

Heretics.     III.   Council   of 
Carthage. 

268 

d.  Aug.  2,  258. 
Vacancy. 

Martyrdom  of  Sixtns.    Martyr- 

259 
260 

1    Dionysius,    July 
22 
2      

dom  of  Cyprian,  Sept.  14. 

261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
2-- 
268 

8 
4                            • 
6 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10      

269 
270 

1  Felix. 
2      

271 
272 

8 
4      

273 
274 
276 
276 

6 
6 
1  Eutyehianus. 
2      

Tacitus,  Probua. 

277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 

8 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8      

283 

2-4 

1  Caitu. 
2      

Nuraerianus. 

285 
286 

3 
4      

287 

M 

i 

6 
6 
7 
8     

Lactantiu*. 

891 

» 

BOOK  I.    CHRONOLOGY  OF  FIRST  FOUR  CFJSTTURIES. 


37 


A.D. 

Bishops  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &o. 

292 

10      

293 
294 
295 
296 

11 
12 
13 

Constantius, 
Gale  ri  us. 

297 
298 
299 
300 
301 

30. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6      

302 
803 
304 
305 
306 

7 
8 
Died  Oct.  24. 

See  vacant. 

Constantius, 
Galerius. 

Abdication   of  Diocletian    and 

Maxiinian. 

807 

308 
809 
310 

MarceUus,  May  19. 

Maxentius, 
Licinius. 
Maximian. 
Six  Emperors. 

Death  of  Severus. 

311 

Death  of  Galerius. 

812 

ades,  July  2. 

813 

Maxentius. 
Edict  of  Milan,  Oct  28 

314 

315 
316 
317 
318 
819 
320 
821 
822 
323 

1  Sylvester.  Jan.  81. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10      

324 

11      

325 

12      

326 
827 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

837 

i38 

1  Julius  I.,  Feb.  6. 
2      

Constantino, 
Cons  tans, 
Constantius. 

Baptism  of  Constantino. 

339 
840 

3 
4      

341 

5      

by  Constans.    Death  of  Eu- 
sebius  of  Csesarea. 

342 

6 

against  Pagan  sacrifices. 

38 


LATIN  CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK  I. 


A.D. 

Bishops  of  Rome. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Events,  &o. 

843 

844 

7 
8      

Athanasius  at  Milan,  in  Gaul. 

845 
846 
847 

9 
10 
11      

Council  of  Sordica. 

848 

12      

849 

13      

850 

14      

851 
852 

853 

15 
1  Julius  died  April 
5  ;         Liberius, 
May  22. 
2      

Magnentiua. 
Battle    of    Mursa.     Death    of 

854 

8      

alone. 

Magnentius. 

855 

4      

856 

5  (Felix    Antipope  ) 

of  Milan.     Banishment    of 
Liberius. 

857 

6      

Athanasius  exiled  from  Al- 
exandria. 

358 

Recall  of  Liberius. 

859 

8      

Council  of  Kimini.    Council  of 

860 
861 

9 
10      

Seleucia. 

862 

11      

868 

12 

dria  —  again  expelled. 

864 

18      

Death  of  Julian,  June  26. 

865 

m 

867 
868 

an 

870 

371 

872 
373 

14 
15  died  Sept.  29. 
1  Damasus. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7      

Valens. 

Gratian. 

Tumults  at  Rome  on  the  con- 
tested election  of   Damasiu 
and  Ursicinus. 

Death  of  Athanasius,  May  2. 

874 
875 

8 
9      

Talentinian  II 

Ambrow,  Bishop  of  Milnn. 

876 
877 
878 

10 
11 
12      

Death  of  Talens. 

879 

13      

Tbeodosius, 

Theodosius  expels  the  Arians. 

880 

14      

.  Kmp.  of  the 
East. 

Synod  against  Priscillian. 
Council  of  Constantinople.    Ad- 

881 
Hi 
883 
884 

15 
16 
17 

dress  of  Symmachus  on  Stat- 
ute of  Theodosius  de  lleret- 
icis. 
Jerome  retires  to  Bethlehem. 

885 

886 
887 

11. 
1  Siricius. 
2 
8      

Chrysostom  ad  Antiochenos. 

888 
889 
890 

4 
5 
6      

Temple  of  Serapis  destroyed. 

891 
892 

7 
8 

BOOK  I.    CHRONOLOGY  OF  FIRST  FOUE  CEXTUKIES. 


39 


A.D. 

Bishops  of  Borne. 

Emperors. 

Remarkable  Brents,  &e. 

393 

9      

394 
395 

10 
11      

Honorius,    Ax~ 

396 
897 

398 

12 
13 

14  died  Xov.  26. 

cadi  us. 

399 

400 

tinople. 

Cn.vr.  I.  HISTORIC  PEKIOES.  41 


BOOK  I 
CHAPTER  I. 

BEGINNING  OF  ROMAN  CHRISTIANITY. 

LATIN  Christianity,  from  its  commencement,  iu  its 
character,  and  in  all  the  circumstances  of  its  Roman  ponaf- 
development,  had  an  irresistible  tendency  to  tre'o/Latu?11" 
monarchy.  Its  capital  had  for  ages  been  the  Christiail5ty- 
capital  of  the  world,  and  it  still  remained  that  of  Western 
Europe.  This  monarchy  reached  its  height  under  Hilde- 
brand  and  Innocent  III. ;  the  history  of  the  Roman 
Pontificate  thus  becomes  the  centre  of  Latin  Christian 
History.  The  controversies  of  the  East,  in  which  Occi- 
dental or  Roman  Christianity  mingled  with  a  lofty  dic- 
tation, sometimes  so  unimpassioned,  that  it  might  seem 
as  though  the  establishment  of  its  own  supremacy  was 
its  ultimate  aim  —  the  conversion  of  the  different  races 
of  Barbarians,  who  constituted  the  world  of  Latin 
Christendom  —  Monasticism,  with  the  forms  which  it 
assumed  in  its  successive  Orders  —  the  rise  and  con- 
quests of  Mohammedanism,  with  which  Latin  religion 
came  at  length  into  direct  conflict,  at  first  in  Spain  and 
Gaul,  in  Sicily  and  Italy  ;  afterwards  when  the  Popes 
placed  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  Crusades,  and 
Islam  and  Latin  Christianity  might  seem  to  contest  the 
dominion  of  the  human  race  —  the  restoration  of  the 


42  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

Western  empire  beyond  the  Alps  —  the  feudal  system 
of  which  the  Pope  aspired  to  be  as  it  were  the  spiritual 
Suzerain  —  the  long  and  obstinate  conflicts  with  the 
temporal  power  —  the  origin  and  tenets  of  the  sects 
which  attempted  to  withdraw  from  the  unity  of  the 
church,  and  to  retire  into  independent  communities  — 
the  first  struggles  of  the  human  mind  for  freedom  within 
Latin  Christendom  —  the  gradual  growth  of  Cliristian 
literature,  Christian  art,  and  Christian  philosophy  —  all 
these  momentous  subjects  range  themselves  as  episodes 
in  the  chronicle  of  the  Roman  bishops.  Hence  our 
history  obtains  that  unity  which  impresses  itself  upon 
the  attention,  and  presents  the  vicissitudes  of  centuries 
as  a  vast,  continuous,  harmonious  whole ;  wliile  at  the 
same  time  it  breaks  up  and  separates  itself  into  distinct 
periods,  each  with  its  marked  events,  peculiar  character, 
and  commanding  men.  And  so  the  plan  of  our  work 
may,  at  least,  attempt  to  fulfil  the  two  great  functions 
of  history,  to  arrest  the  mind  and  carry  it  on  with 
unflagging  interest,  to  infix  its  whole  course  of  events 
on  the  imagination  and  the  memory,  as  well  -by  its 
broad  and  definite  landmarks,  as  by  the  life  and  reality 
of  its  details  in  each  separate  period.  The  writer  is 
unfeignedly  conscious  how  far  his  own  powers  fall  below 
the  dignity  of  his  subject,  below  the  accomplishment 
of  his  own  conceptions. 

I.  —  The  first  of  these  periods  in  the  history  of  Latin 
A.  ».  866-401.  Christianity  closes  with  Pope  Damasus  and 
his  two  successors.1  Its  age  of  total  obscurity  is  passed, 
its  indistinct  twilight  is  brightening  into  open  day.  The 

i  There  is  another  advantage  in  this  division ;  the  first  authentic  decretal 
is  that  of  Pope  Siricius,  the  successor  of  Damasus. 


CHAP.  I.  HISTORIC  PERIODS.  43 

Christian  bishop  is  become  so  important  a  personage  in 
Rome,  as  to  be  the  subject  of  profane  history.  His 
election  is  a  cause  of  civil  strife.  Christianity  more 
than  equally  divides  the  Patriciate,  still  more  the  peo- 
ple ;  it  has  already  ascended  the  Imperial  throne. 
Noble  matrons  and  virgins  are  becoming  the  vestals  of 
Christian  Monasticism.  The  bitterness  of  the  Heathen 
party  betrays  a  galling  sense  of  inferiority.  Paganism 
is  writhing,  struggling,  languishing  in  its  death  pangs, 
Christianity  growing  haughty  and  wanton  in  its  tri- 
umph. 

II.  —  The  second  ends  with  Pope  Leo  the  Great. 
Paganism  has  made  its  last  vain  effort,  not  A.  ».  461. 
now  for  equality,  for  toleration.     It  has  been  buried 
under   the   ruins   of  the    conquered    capital.     Alaric 
tramples  out  its  last  embers.     Rome  emerges  from  its 
destruction  by  the  Goths  a  Christian  city.     The  East 
has  wrought  out,  after  the  strife  of  two  centuries,  the 
dogmatic  system  of  the  church,  which  Rome  receives 
with  haughty  condescension,  as  if  she  had  imposed  it 
on  the  world.     The  great  Western  controversy,  Pela- 
gianism,  has  been  agitated  and  has  passed  away.     Pre- 
tensions to  the  successorship  of  St.  Peter  are  A.  D.  402-417 
already  heard  from  Innocent  I.     Claims  are  made  at 
least  to  the  authority  of  a  Western  Patriarch.     In  Leo 
the  Great,  half  a  century  later,  the  pope  is  A.  D.  440-461. 
not  merely  the  greatest  personage  in  Rome,  but  even 
in   Italy  ;    he  takes   the  lead   as   a  pacific  protector 
against  the  Barbarians.     Leo  the  Great  is  likewise  the 
first  distinguished  writer  among  the  popes. 

III.  —  To  the  death  of  Gregory  I.   (the    Great). 


44  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

A.  D.  604.  Christianity  is  not  only  the  religion  of  the 
Roman  or  Italian,  but  in  part  of  the  barbarian  world. 
Now  takes  place  the  league  of  Christianity  with  Bar- 
barism. The  old  Roman  letters  and  arts  die  away  into 
almost  total  extinction.  So  fallen  is  Roman  literature, 
that  Boethius  is  a  great  philosopher,  Cassiodorus  a 
great  historian,  Prudentius,  Fortunatus,  Juvencus  great 
poets.  The  East  has  made  its  last  effort  to  unite  the 
Christian  world  under  one  dominion.  Justinian  has 
aspired  to  legislate  for  Christendom.  Monastic  Chris- 
tianity, having  received  a  strong  impulse  from  St.  Ben- 
edict, is  in  the  ascendant.  Gregory  I.  as  a  Pope,  and 
as  a  writer,  offers  himself  as  a  model  of  its  excellencies 
and  defects. 

IV.  —  To  the  coronation  of  Charlemagne  as  Em- 
A.  D.  800.       peror   of  the   West.     Mohammed   and  Mo- 
hammedanism arise.     The  East  and  Egypt  are  severed 
from  Greek,  Africa  and  Spain  from  Latin  Christianity. 
Anglo-Saxon    Britain,  Western   and    Southern    Ger- 
many are  Christian.     Iconoclasm  in  the  East  finally 
separates  Greek   and   Latin   Christianity.     The  Pope 
has  become  the  great  power  in  Italy.     The  Gothic 
kingdom,  the  Greek  dominion  of  Justinian  have  passed 
away.     The  Pope  seeks  an  alliance  against  the  Lom- 
bards with  the   Transalpine  lungs.      Charlemagne  is 
Patrician  of  Rome  and  Emperor  of  the  West. 

V.  —  The  Empire  of  Charlemagne.     The  mingled 
Temporal   and    Ecclesiastical    supremacy   of  Charle- 
magne breaks  up  at  his  death.     Under  his  successors 
the  spiritual  supremacy,  in  part  the  temporal,  falls  to 
the   clergy.     Growth   of  the   Transalpine   hierarchy. 


CHAP.  I.  HISTORIC  PERIODS.  45 

Pope  Nicholas  the  First  accepts  the  false  decretals. 
Invasion  of  the  Northmen.     The  dark  ages  A.  ».  996. 
of  the  Papacy  lower  and  terminate  in  the  degradation 
of  the  Popes  into  slaves  of  the  lawless  Barons  of  the 
Romagna. 

VI.  —  The  line  of  German  Pontiffs.     The  Transal- 
pine  powers   interpose,    rescue   the    Papacy  A.  D.996-1061. 
from  its  threatened   dissolution,  from  the  hatred  and 
contempt   of  mankind.     For  great  part  of  a  century 
foreign  ecclesiastics  are  seated  on  the  Papal  throne. 

VII.  —  The  restoration  of  the  Italian  Papacy  under 
Gregory  VII.   (Hildebrand).     The  Pontifi- A  D  1061_ 
cates  of  his  immediate  predecessors  and  sue-  10<3< 
cessors.     Now  commences  the  complete  organization  of 
the  sacerdotal  caste  as   independent  of,  and  claiming 
superiority  to,  all  temporal  powers.     The  strife  of  cen- 
turies ends  in  the  enforced  celibacy  of  the  clergy.     Ber- 
engar  disputes  Transubstantiation.     Urban  II.  places 
himself  at  the  head  of  Christendom  on  the  *•  D.  1095. 
occasion  of  the  first  Crusade. 

VIII. — Continuation  of  contest  about  Investitures. 
Intellectual  movement.  Erigena.  Gotschalk.  An- 
selm.  Abelard.  Arnold  of  Brescia.  Strong  revival 
of  Monasticism.  Stephen  Harding.  St.  Ber-  The  12th  Cen- 
nard.  Strife  in  England  for  immunities  of  tury' 

o 

the  clergy.     Thomas  a  Becket.     Rise  of  the  Emperors 
of  the  line  of  Hohenstaufen.     Frederick  Barbarossa. 

IX.  —  Meridian  of  the  Papal  power  under  Innocent 
III.  Innocent  aspires  to  rule  all  the  king-  From  1193. 


46  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

doms  of  the  West.  Latin  conquest  of  Constantinople. 
Wars  of  the  Albigenses.  St.  Dominic.  St.  Francis. 

X.  —  The  successors  of  Innocent  III.  wan-e  an  inter- 

O 

necine  conflict  with  the  Emperors.     Fruitless  and  pre- 
mature attempt  at  emancipation  under  Frederick  II. 
TV    The  Decretals,  the  Palladium  of  the  Papal 

Uregory  IJL.  *  * 

122&-1238.  power,  are  collected,  completed,  promulgated 
as  the  law  of  Christendom  by  Gregory'  IX.  Con- 
tinued conflict  of  the  Papal  and  Sacerdotal  against  the 
innocent  rv.  Imperial  and  Secular  power.  Innocent  IV. 
dies  1254.  Fall  of  the  House  of  Hohenstaufen. 

XI.  —  The  Empire  is  crushed,  and  withdraws  into 
its  Teutonic  sphere.     The  French  descend  into  Italy. 
In  the  King  of  France  arises  a  new  adversary  to  the 
Bomfcce  ^  Pope.     Philip  the  Fan*  and  Boniface  VIII. 

close   the   open  strife   of  the  temporal   and 
spiritual  power. 

XII.  —  The  Popes  are  become  the  slaves  of  France 
at  Avignon.      What  is   called   the  Babylonian   cap- 
A.  D.  1305  to  tivity  of  seventy  years.     Clement  V.   abol- 
ishes  the   Templars.    The  Em j tire   resumes 

its  claims  on  Italy.  Henry  of  Luxemburg.  Louis 
of  Bavaria.  John  XXII.  and  the  Fraticelli.  Rienzi. 

XIII.  —  Restoration  to  Rome.     The  great  Schism. 
Councils  of  Pisa,  of  Constance,  of  Basil,  of  Florence, — 
the  Councils  advance  a  claim  to  supivinucy  over  the 
Popes.     Last  attempt  to  reconcile   Greek   and   Latin 
Christianity.     Popes  begin  to  be  patrons  of  Letters 
and  Arts. 


CHAP.  I.    FIRST  PROGRESS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME.      47 

XIV.  —  Retrospect  of  Mediaeval  Letters  and  Arts. 
Revival  of  Greek  Letters. 

CONCLUSION.  — Advance  of  the  Reformation.  Teu- 
tonic Christianity  aspires  and  begins  to  divide  the 
world  with  Latin  Christianity. 


Like  almost  all  the  great  works  of  nature  and  of 
human  power  in  the  material  world  and  in  the  world 
of  man,  the  Papacy  grew  up  in  silence  and  obscurity. 
The  names  of  the  earlier  Bishops  of  Rome  are  known 
only  by  barren  lists,1  by  spurious  decrees  and  epistles 
inscribed,  centuries  later,  with  their  names  ;  by  their 
collision  with  the  teachers  of  heretical  opinions,  almost 
all  of  whom  found  their  way  to  Rome ;  by  martyrdoms 
ascribed  with  the  same  lavish  reverence  to  those  who 
lived  under  the  mildest  of  the  Roman  emperors,  as 
well  as  those  under  the  most  merciless  persecutors.2 
Yet  the  mythic  or  imaginative  spirit  of  early  Chris- 
tianity has  either  respected,  or  was  not  tempted  to 


1  The  catalogue  published  by  Bucherius,  called  also  Liberianus,  is  gen- 
erally the  most  accredited.     M.  Bunsen  promises  a  revision  of  the  whole 
question.     (Hippolytus,  i.  279.)    Historically  the  chronological  discrepan- 
cies in  these  lists  are  of  no  great  importance.    But  it  is  remarkable  that 
almost  all  the  earlier  names  are  Greek ;  Clemens,  Pius,  Victor,  Caius,  are 
among  the  very  few  genuine  Roman. 

2  In  a  list  of  Popes,  published  by  Fabricius  (Bibliotheca  Graeca,  xi.  p. 
794),  from  St.  Peter  to  Sylvester,  two  unhappy  pontiffs  alone  (who  are  ac- 
knowledged to  be  Greeks)  are  excluded  from  the  honors  of  martyrdom, 
Dionysius  and  Eusebius.    It  might  seem  that  this  list  was  composed  after 
Greek  and  Latin  Christianity  had  become  hostile.    As  an  illustration  of  the 
worthlessness  of  these  traditions,  Telesphorus  is  reckoned  as  a  martyr  on 
the  authority  of  Irenaeus  (1.  ii.  c.  3;  compare  note  of  Feuardentius).      But 
Telesphorus  was  bishop  of  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Hadrian ;  his  martyr- 
dom is  ascribed  to  the  first  year  of  Antoninus  Pius.     Their  character,  as 
well  as  the  general  voice  of  Christian  history  (see  Hist,  of  Christianity, 
vol.  i.  p.  151, 156),  absolves  these  emperors  from  the  charge  of  persecution. 


48  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK.  I. 

indulge  its  creative  fertility  by  the  primitive  annals  of 
Rome.  After  the  embellishment,  if  not  the  invention, 
of  St.  Peter's  Pontificate,  his  conflict  with  Simon 
Magus  in  the  presence  of  the  Emperor,  and  the  cir- 
cumstance of  his  martyrdom,  it  was  content  with 
raising  the  successive  bishops  to  the  rank  of  martyrs 
without  any  peculiar  richness  or  fulness  of  legend.1 

It  would  be  singularly  curious  and  instructive  to 
trace,  if  it  were  possible,  the  rise  and  growth  of  any 
single  Christian  community,  more  especially  that  of 
Rome,  at  once  in  the  whole  church,  and  in  the  lives  of 
the  bishops  ;  the  first  initiatory  movements  in  the  con- 
quest of  the  world,  and  of  the  mistress  of  the  world, 
by  the  religion  of  Christ.  How  did  the  Church 
enlarge  her  sphere  in  Rome?  how,  out  of  the  popu- 
lation (from  a  million  to  a  million  and  a  half),2 
slowly  gather  in  her  tens,  her  hundreds,  her  thousands 
of  converts  ?  By  what  processes,  by  what  influences, 

1  Two  remarkable  passages  greatly  weaken,  or  rather  utterly  destroy  the 
authority  of  all  the  older  Roman  martyrologies.    In  the  book,  De  libris 
recipiendis,  ascribed  to  the  pontificate  of  Damasus,  of  Honnisdas,  more 
probably  to  that  of  Gelasius,  the  caution  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  not 
publicly  reading  the  martyrologies  is  highly  praised,  their  writers  being 
unknown  and  without  authority.     Singular!  cautela  a  S.  Rom.  Ecclesia- 
non  leguntur,  quia  et  eorum  qui  conscripserint  nomina  penittis  ignorantur, 
et  ab  infidelibus  vel  idiotis  superflua  aut  minus  apta  quam  rei  ordo  fuerit 
esse  putantur  ....  The  authors  "  Deo  magis  quam  hominibus  noti  sunt." 
Apud  Mansi,  sub  Pont.  Gelasii,  A.D.  492,  496.    Gregory  I.  makes  even  a 
more  ingenuous  confession,  that  excepting  one  small  volume  (a  calendar,  it 
should  seem,  of  the  names  and  days  on  which  they  were  honored)  there 
were  no  Acts  of  Martyrs  in  the  archives  of  the  Roman  See  or  in  the 
libraries  of  Rome.    Prater  ilia,  quse  in  ejusdem  Eusebii  libris  (doubtless 
the    de  Martyr.    Falsest,  of  the   historian),  de  gestis  sanctorum  marty- 
rum  continentur,  nulla  in  archivis  hujus  nostrae  Ecclesiae  vel  in  Romanae 
nrbis  bibliothecis  esse  cognovi,  nisi  pauca  quaedam  in  unius  codicis  volu- 
mine  collecta,  et  seqq.    Greg.  M.  Epist.  viii.  29. 

2  Notwithstanding  the  arguments  of  M.  Bureau  de  la  Malle,  Mr.  Meri- 
vale,  and  other  learned  writers  who  have  also  investigated  this  subject,  I 
Btill  think  the  estimate  of  Gibbon  the  most  probable. 


CHAP.  I.    FIKST  PEOGRESS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME.       49 

by  what  degrees  did  the  Christians  creep  onward 
towards  dangerous,  towards  equal,  towards  obscurity  of 
superior  numbers?  How  did  they  find  ac- *pSes ^oS 
cess  to  the  public  ear,  the  public  mind,  the  tianity- 
public  heart?  How  were  they  looked  upon  by  the 
government  (after  the  Neronian  persecution),  with 
what  gradations,  or  alternations  of  contempt,  of  indif- 
ference, of  suspicion,  of  animosity?  When  were  they 
entirely  separated  and  distinguished  in  general  opinion 
from  the  Jewish  communities  ?  When  did  they  alto- 
gether cease  to  Judaize  ?  From  what  order,  from  what 
class,  from  what  race  did  they  chiefly  make  their  pros- 
elytes ?  Where  and  by  what  channels  did  they  wage 
their  strife  with  the  religion,  where  with  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  times?  To  what  extent  were  they  per- 
mitted or  disposed  to  hold  public  discussion?  or  did 
the  work  of  conversion  spread  in  secret  from  man  to 
man  ?  When  did  their  worship  emerge  from  the 
obscurity  of  a  private  dwelling;  or  have  its  edifices, 
like  the  Jewish  synagogues,  recognized  as  sacred 
fanes  ?  Were  they,  to  what  extent,  and  how  long,  a 
people  dwelling  apart  within  their  own  usages,  and 
retiring  from  social  communion  with  their  kindred, 
and  with  the  rest  of  mankind  ? 

Rome  must  be  imagined  in  the  vastness  and  multi- 
formity of  its  social  condition,  the  mingling  and  con- 
fusion of  races,  languages,  conditions,  in  order  to 
conceive  the  slow,  imperceptible,  yet  continuous  ag- 
gression of  Christianity.  Amid  the  affairs  of  the 
universal  empire,  the  perpetual  revolutions,  which  were 
constantly  calling  up  new  dynasties  or  new  masters 
over  the  world,  the  pomp  and  state  of  the  Imperial 
palace,  the  commerce,  the  business  flowing  in  from  all 

VOL.  I.  4 


50  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

parts  of  the  world,  the  bustle  of  the  Basilicas  or  courts 
of  law,  the  ordinary  religious  ceremonies,  or  the  more 
splendid  rites  on  signal  occasions,  which  still  went  on, 
if  with  diminishing  concourse  of  worshippers,  ^ith 
their  old  sumptuousness,  magnificence,  and  frequency, 
the  public  games,  the  theatres,  the  gladiatorial  shows, 
the  Lucullan  or  Apician  banquets,  —  Christianity  was 
gradually  withdrawing  from  the  heterogeneous  mass 
some  of  all  orders,  even  slaves,  out  of  the  vices,  the 
ignorance,  the  misery  of  that  corrupted  social  system. 
It  was  ever  instilling  feelings  of  humanity  yet  un- 
known or  coldly  commended  by  an  impotent  philoso- 
phy, among  men  and  women,  whose  infant  ears  had 
been  habituated  to  the  shrieks  of  dying  gladiators ;  it 
was  giving  dignity  to  minds  prostrated  by  years,  almost 
centuries,  of  degrading  despotism ;  it  was  nurturing 
purity  and  modesty  of  manners  in  an  unspeakable  state 
of  depravation ;  it  was  enshrining  the  marriage  bed  in 
a  sanctity  long  almost  entirely  lost,  and  rekindling  to  a 
steady  warmth  the  domestic  affections ;  it  was  sub- 
stituting a  simple,  calm,  and  rational  faith  and  worship 
for  the  worn-out  superstitions  of  heathenism ;  gently 
establishing  in  the  soul  of  man  the  sense  of  immor- 
tality, till  it  became  a  natural  and  inextinguishable 
part  of  his  moral  being. 

The  dimness  and  obscurity  which  veiled  the  growing 
Obscurity  of   church,  no  doubt  threw  its  modest  conceal- 

the  Bishop  of  . 

Rome.  ment  over  the  person  of  the  Bishop.  He 
was  but  one  man,  with  no  recognized  function,  in  the 
vast  and  tumultuous  population.  He  had  his  un- 
marked dwelling,  perhaps  in  the  distant  Transteverine 
region,  or  in  the  then  lowly  and  unfrequented  Vatican. 
By  the  vulgar,  he  was  beheld  as  a  Jew,  or  as  belonging 


CHAP.  I.      OBSCURITY  OF  THE  BISHOPS  OF  EOME.  51 

to  one  of  those  countless  Eastern  religions,  which,  from 
the  commencement  of  the  Empire,  had  been  flowing, 
each  with  its  strange  rites  and  mysteries,  into  Rome. 
The  Emperor,  the  Imperial  family,  the  court  favorites, 
the  military  commanders,  the  Consulars,  the  Senators, 
the  Patricians  by  birth,  wealth,  or  favor,  the  Pontiffs,  the 
great  lawyers,  even  those  who  ministered  to  the  public 
pleasures,  the  distinguished  mimes  or  gladiators,  when 
they  appeared  in  the  streets,  commanded  more  public 
attention  than  the  Christian  Bishop,'  except  when 
sought  out  for  persecution  by  some  politic  or  fanatic 
Emperor.  Slowly,  and  at  long  intervals,  did  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  emerge  to  dangerous  eminence.  Yet, 
was  there  not  more  real  greatness,  a  more  solemn 
testimony  to  his  faith  in  Christ,  in  this  calm  and 
steadfast  patience  which  awaited  the  tardy  accomplish- 
ment of  the  divine  promises,  than  if,  as  he  is  some- 
times described  by  the  fond  reverence  of  later  Roman 
writers,  he  had  already  laid  claim  to  supreme  power 
over  expanding  Christianity,  or  had  been  held  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  be  constantly  exposed  to  death? 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  could  not  but  be  conscious  that 
he  was  chief  minister  in  the  capital  of  the  world  of 
a  religion  which  was  confronting  Paganism  in  all  its 
power  and  majesty.  His  faith  was  constantly  looking 
forward  to  the  time,  when  (if  not  anticipated  by  the 
more  appalling  triumph  at  the  coming  of  Christ  in  His 
glory)  that  vast  fabric  of  idolatry,  in  its  strength  and 
wealth,  hallowed  by  the  veneration  of  ages,  with  all 
its  temples,  pomps,  theatres,  priesthood,  its  crimes  and 
its  superstitions,  and  besides  this,  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
philosophic  aristocracy,  would  crumble  away  ;  and  the 
successor  of  the  Galilean  fisherman  or  the  persecuted 


62  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

Jew  be  recognized  as  the  religious  sovereign  of  the 
Christianized  city.  The  peaceful  head  of  a  small 
community  (small  comparatively  with  the  believers  in 
the  old  religions  or  the  believers  in  none,)  even  though, 
like  the  Apostle,  he  may  have  had  some  converts  in  high 
places,  "  in  Caesar's  household,"  yet  who  had  no  doubt 
in  the  future  universality  of  Christianity,  and  who  was 
content  to  pursue  his  noiseless  course  of  beneficence 
and  conversion,  is  a  nobler  example  of  true  Christian- 
ity, than  he  who,  in  the  excitement  of  opposition  to 
power,  and  in  the  absorbing  but  brief  agony  of 
martyrdom,  laid  down  his  life  for  the  Cross. 

Christianity,  indeed,  might  seem,  even  from  the 
Persecuyon  first*  to  have  disdained  obscurity  —  to  have 
sprung  up  or  to  have  been  forced  into  terri- 
ble notoriety  in  the  Neronian  persecution  and  the  sub- 
sequent martyrdom  of  one  at  least,  accoiding  to  the 
vulgar  tradition,  of  its  two  great  Apostles.  What 
caprice  of  cruelty  directed  the  attention  of  Nero  to 
the  Christians,  and  made  him  suppose  them  victims 
important  enough  to  glut  the  popular  indignation  at 
the  burning  of  Rome,  it  is  impossible  to  determine : 
(the  author  has  ventured  on  a  bold  conjecture,  and 
OfDomitun.  adheres  to  his  own  paradox).1  The  cause 
and  extent  of  the  Domitian  persecution  is  equally  ob- 
scure. The  son  of  Vespasian  was  not  likely  to  be 
merciful  to  any  connected  with  the  fanatic  Jews.  Its 
known  victims  were  of  the  imperial  family,  against 
whom  some  crime  was  necessary,  and  an  accusation  of 
Christianity  served  the  end.2 

At  the  commencement  of  the  second  century,  under 

i  Hist  of  Christianity,  ii.  p.  36. 
*  Ibid.,  ii.  p.  59. 


CHAP.  I.  ROMAN  CHURCH  UNDER  TRAJAN.  53 

Trajan,  persecution  against  the  Christians  is  Roman 

^T  .  Church  under 

raging  in  the  .hast.  1  hat,  however  (1  teel  Trajan. 
increased  confidence  in  the  opinion),  was  a  local,  or 
rather  Asiatic  persecution,  arising  out  of  the  vigilant 
and  not  groundless  apprehension  of  the  sullen  and 
brooding  preparation  for  insurrection  among  the  whole 
Jewish  race  (with  whom  Roman  terror  and  hatred 
still  confounded  the  Christians),  which  broke  out  in 
the  bloody  massacres  of  Gyrene  and  Cyprus,  and  in 
the  final  rebellion,  during  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  under 
Barchochebas.  But  while  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
is  carried  to  Rome  to  suffer  martyrdom,  the  Roman 
community  is  in  peace,  and  not  without  influence. 
Ignatius  entreats  his  Roman  brethren  not  to  interfere 
with  injurious  kindness  between  himself  and  his  glo- 
rious death.1 

The  wealth  of  the  Roman  community,  and  their 
lavish  Christian  use  of  their  wealth,  by  contributing 
to  the  wants  of  foreign  churches,  at  all  periods,  espec- 
ially in  times  of  danger  and  disaster,  (an  ancient  usage 
which  lasted  till  the  time  of  Eusebius,)  testifies  at  once  to 
their  flourishing  condition,  to  their  constant  communica- 
tion with  more  distant  parts  of  the  empire,2  and  thus  in- 


TTJIS  vpjv  ayairriv,  fir}  aiirfi  fie  ddwc^crj?,  V/MV  -yap 
ioriv  b  $£/leT£  KOif/aai.  —  p.  41.  'Eyu  ypafyu  irfraau;  raif  EKKfajaiaif  not 
TTUOIV  on  tyu  £KUV  imep  BEOV  ano&vf/anu,  iavnep  i>fj.eif  ftff 
(fj.e).  HapaKafaj  vpetf  ^  (EV)  evvolg.  uKoipu  -yEvja&E  (Ml 
...  —  Corpus  Ipnatianum  a  Cureton,  p.  45.  I  quote  Mr.  Cureton's  Syriac 
Ignatius,  not  feeling  that  the  larger  copies  have  equal  historical  authority. 
2  The  first  notice  of  this  is  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century,  during 
the  bishopric  of  Soter,  either  173-177,  or  168-176,  as  appears  from  the  let- 
ter of  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  &;  (ipxqc  yap  i>[uv  e$of  earl  TOVTO.  He  calls  it 
also  Trarpnrapu.6oTov  Mo?  —  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23.  It  continued  during  the 
Decian  persecution;  Syria  and  Arabia  are  described  as  rejoicing  in  the 
bounty  of  Rome.  H.  E.  vii.  5.  Eusebius  himself  speaks  of  it  as  lasting 
to  his  time.  TO  pexpl  TOV  /«#'  ijfMf  dtuynov  tyvliaxdEV  'Pu/xuuv  thJof  . 


64  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

cidentall y,  perhaps,  to  the  class,  the  middle  or  mercantile 
class,  which  formed  the  greater  part  of  the  believers. 

But  the  history  of  Latin  Christianity  has  not  begun. 
For  some  considerable  (it  cannot  but  be  an  undefinable) 
Church  of  Par*  °^  *ne  ^^^  three  centuries,  the  Church 

Borne  Greek.    Qf  Romej  an(J  most?  jf  not  aU  the  churches  of 

the  West,  were,  if  we  may  so  speak,  Greek  religious 
colonies.  Their  language  was  Greek,  their  organiza- 
tion Greek,  their  writers  Greek,  their  Scriptures 
Greek  ;  and  many  vestiges  and  traditions  show  that 
their  ritual,  their  Liturgy  was  Greek.  Through  Greek 
the  communication  of  the  churches  of  Rome  and  of 
the  West  was  constantly  kept  up  with  the  East ;  and 
through  Greek  every  heresiarch,  or  his  disciples,  hav- 
ing found  his  way  to  Rome,  propagated,  with  more  or 
less  success,  his  peculiar  doctrines.  Greek  was  the 
commercial  language  throughout  the  empire  ;  by  which 
the  Jews,  before  the  destruction  of  their  city,  already 
so  widely  disseminated  through  the  world,  and  alto- 
gether engaged  in  commerce,  carried  on  their  affairs.1 

1  At  the  commencement  of  the  second  century,  from  the  time  of  the 
great  peace,  which  followed  the  victories  of  Trajan,  and  which,  with  some 
exceptions,  occupied  the  whole  reigns  of  Hadrian,  Antoninus  Pius,  Marcus 
Aurelius,  till  the  Marcotnannic  war;  when  the  Csesars  had  become  cosmo- 
politan sovereigns  of  the  Roman  Empire,  rather  than  emperors  of  Rome; 
Greek,  in  letters,  appears  to  have  assumed  a  complete  ascendancy.  Greek 
literature  has  the  names  of  Plutarch,  Appian,  Arrian,  Herodian  (the  his- 
torian), Lucian,  Pausanias,  Dion  Cassius,  Galen,  Sextus  Empiricus,  Epic- 
tetus,  Ptolemy.  The  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius  wrote  his  philosophy  in 
Greek.  The  poets,  such  as  they  were,  chiefly  of  the  didactic  class,  Oppian, 
Nicander,  are  Greeks.  (See,  in  Fynes  Clinton's  Appendix  to  Fasti  Ro- 
mani,  the  catalogue  of  Greek  authors.)  Latin  literature  might  seem  to 
have  been  in  a  state  of  suspended  animation  after  Quintilian,  the  Pliny*, 
and  Tacitus.  Not  merelv  are  there  no  writers  of  name  who  have  survived, 
but  there  hardly  seem  to  have  been  any.  From  Juvenal  to  Claudian  there 
is  scarcely  a  poet.  The  fragments  of  Fronto,  lately  discovered,  do  not 
make  us  wish  for  more  of  a  writer  who  had  greater  fame  than  most  of  his 
day.  Apuleius  was  an  African. 

Jurisprudence  alone  maintained  the  dignity  and  dominion  of  Latin.    The 


CHAP.  I.  CHURCH  OF  BOME  GREEK.  55 

The  Greek  Old  Testament  was  read  in  the  synagogues 
of  the  foreign  Jews.  The  churches,  formed  sometimes 
on  the  foundation,  to  a  certain  extent  on  the  model,  of 
the  synagogues,  would  adhere  for  some  time,  no  doubt, 
to  their  language.  The  Gospels  and  the  Apostolic 
writings,  so  soon  as  they  became  part  of  the  public 
worship,  would  be  read,  as  the  Septuagint  was,  in  their 
original  tongue.  All  the  Christian  extant  writings 
which  appeared  in  Rome  and  in  the  West  are  Greek, 
or  were  originally  Greek,1  the  Epistles  of  Clement, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  the  Clementine  Recognitions 
and  Homilies  ;  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr,  down  to 
Caius  and  Hippolytus  the  author  of  the  Refutation  of 
All  Heresies.  The  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix,2  and 
the  Treatise  of  Novatian  on  the  Trinity,  are  the  ear- 
liest known  works  of  Latin  Christian  literature  which 
came  from  Rome.  So  was  it  too  in  Gaul :  there  the 
first  Christians  were  settled  chiefly  in  the  Greek  cities, 
which  owned  Marseilles  as  their  parent,  and  which 
retained  the  use  of  Greek  as  their  vernacular  tongue. 
Iren?eus  wrote  in  Greek ;  the  account  of  the  Martyrs 
of  Lyons  and  Vienne  is  in  Greek.  Vestiges  of  the  old 
Greek  ritual  long  survived  not  only  in  Rome,  but  also 
in  some  of  the  Gallic  churches.  The  Kyrie  eleison 
still  lingers  in  the  Latin  service.3  The  singular  fact, 

great  lawyers,  Ulpian,  Paulus,  and  their  colleagues,  are  the  only  famous 
writers.  Latin  law  alone,  of  Latin  letters,  was  studied  in  the  schools  of 
the  East.  The  Greek  writers  of  the  day  were  many  of  them  ignorant  of 
Latin. 

1  Ubrigens  war  die  Griechische  Sprache  noch  fast  die  einzige  Kirchen- 
gprache.     Gieseler,  i.  p.  203.     (Compare  the  passage.) 

2  Some  place  the  Octavius  in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  others  be- 
tween Tertullian  and  Cyprian.     Gieseler,  note,  p.  207. 

3  Martene,  de  Antiquis  Ecclesise  ritibus,  i.  p.  102:  he  quotes  the  anony- 
mous Turonius.    Nos  canimus  illud  Grace  juxta  morem  antiquum  Roma 


56  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

related  by  the  historian  Sozomen,  that,  for  the  first  cen- 
turies, there  was  no  public  preaching  in  Rome,  here 
finds  its  explanation.  Greek  was  the  ordinary  lan- 
guage of  the  community,  but  among  the  believers  and 
worshippers  may  have  been  Latins,  who  understood 
nc%  or  understood  imperfectly,  the  Greek.  The  Gos- 
pev  or  sacred  writings  were  explained  according  to  the 
capacities  of  the  persons  present.  Hippolytus  indeed 
composed,  probably  delivered,  homilies  in  Greek,  in 
imitation  of  Origen,  who,  when  at  Rome,  may  have 
preached  in  Greek  ;  and  this  is  spoken  of  as  something 
«4(M6i.  new.  Pope  Leo  I.  was  the  first  celebrated 
Latin  preacher,  and  his  brief  and  emphatic  sermons 
read  like  the  first  essays  of  a  rude  and  untried  elo- 
quence, rather  than  the  finished  compositions  which 
would  imply  a  long  study  and  cultivation  of  pulpit 
oratory.  Compare  them  with  Chrysostom.1 

Africa,2  not  Rome,  gave  birth  to  Latin  Christianity. 

nse  ecclesia?,  cui  tarn  Grseci  quam  Latini  solebant  antiquitus  deservire,  et  a 
Graecis  habitabatur  maxima  pars  Italia;,  et  seqq.  This  is  evidence  for  the 
Church  of  Tours.  It  is  by  no  means  clear  when  the  Latin  service  began, 
even  in  Rome.  There  is  much  further  illustration  of  the  coexistence  of  the 
Latin  and  Greek  service  in  the  West,  to  a  late  period.  Compare  Martene, 
iii.  35.  The  Epistle  and  Gospel  were  read  in  both  languages  to  a  late 
period.  Mabillon,  Iter  Italicum,  ii.  pp.  168  and  453.  In  Southern  Gaul 
Latin  had  not  entirely  dispossessed  Greek  in  the  fifth  century:  Greek  was 
still  spoken  by  part  of  the  population  of  Aries.  (See  Fauriel,  Gaule  Me'ri- 
dionale,  i.  p.  432.)  A  Saint  Martial  de  Limoges  on  chantait  en  Grec  dans 
le  x.  siecle  &  la  Messe  du  jour  de  la  Pentecote  le  Gloria,  le  Sanctus,  1'Ag- 
nus,  &c.  Ce  fait  est  ^tabli  par  un  MS.  de  la  Bibliotheque  Royale,  4°  4458. 
Jourdain,  Traductions  d'Aristote,  p.  44. 

1  In  Rome  neither  the  Bishop  nor  any  one  else  publicly  preached  to  the 
people,  ofJre  6k  6  k-xiatiOKog  airs  u?^6f  TIC  tv&ufte  tif  tKKfa/aiae  diAuaKCi. 
H.  E.  vii.  19.     In  Alexandria  the  bishop  alone  preached.     Compare  Bun- 
Ben's  Hippolytus,  vol.  i.  p.  318. 

2  Of  Africa  Greek  was  the  general  language  no  further  East  than  the 
Cyrenaica;  westward  the  old  Punic  language  prevailed,  even  where  the 
Boman  conquerors  had  superinduced  Latin.    Even  Tertullian  wrote  also 


CHAP.  I.  AFRICAN  ORIGIN  OF  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.         57 

Tertullian  was  the  first  Latin  writer,  at  least  the  first 
who  commanded  the  public  ear  ;  and  there  Africa  parent 

-.  ofLattn 

is  strong  ground  tor  supposing  that,  since  Christianity. 
Tertullian  quotes  the  sacred  writings  perpetually  and 
copiously,  the  earliest  of  those  many  Latin  versions, 
noticed  by  Augustine,  and  on  which  Jerome  grounded 
his  Vulgate,  were  African.1  Cyprian  kept  up  the  tra- 
dition of  ecclesiastical  Latin.  Arnobius,  too,  was  an 
African.2 

Thus  the  Roman  church  was  but  one  of  the  confed- 
eration of  Greek  religious  republics,  founded  Church  of 
by  Christianity.    As  of  Apostolic  origin,  still  *f°|K£E 
more   as   the   church   of  the   capital   of  the dom- 
world,  it  was,  of  course,  of  paramount  dignity  and  im- 
portance.    It  is   difficult  to  exaggerate  the  height  at 
which  Rome,  before  the  foundation  of  Constantinople, 

in  Greek.  Latin  e  quoque  ostendam  virgines  nostras  velari  oportere.  (De 
Virgin,  veland.)  Sed  et  huic  materiae  propter  suaviludios  nostros  Graeco 
quoque  stylo  satisfecimus.  De  Coron.  Mil.  vi. 

1  Vetus  hsec  interpretatio  vix  dubitari  potest  quin  inter  earn  gentem  quae 
Graecse  linguee  minim  e  perita  esset,  nata  fuerit,  hoc  est  in  Africa.  Lach- 
man,  Pref.  in  Nov.  Test.  Lachman  quotes  a  learned  Dissertation  of  Car- 
dinal Wiseman  as  conclusive  on  this  point.  In  this  Dissertation  (reprinted 
in  his  Essays,  London,  1854)  the  author  ventures  on  the  forlorn  hope  of  the 
vindication  of  the  disputed  text  in  St.  John's  Epistle.  I  can  only  express 
my  surprise  that  so  acute  a  writer  should  see  any  force  in  such  arguments. 
But  the  Dissertation  on  African  Latinity  appears  to  me  valuable,  scholar- 
like,  and  sound.  The  dubious  passage  of  St.  Augustine,  on  which  alone 
rests  the  tradition  of  the  Versio  Itala,  I  would  read,  after  Bentley,  as  Bishop 
Marsh  and  most  of  the  later  biblical  scholars,  Itta. — Marsh's  Introduction, 
note,  vol.  ii.  p.  623. 

1  would  suggest,  as  a  curious  investigation,  if  it  has  not  yet  been  executed 
by  any  competent  scholar  (which  I  presume  not  to  assert),  a  critical  com- 
parison of  the  Latinity  of  the  old  version,  as  published  by  Sabatier,  and 
even  of  the  Vulgate,  with  the  Latin  of  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Apuleius  of 
Madaura,  and  other  African  writers. 

2  Minucius  Felix,  Arnobius,  Lactantius  are  to  the  Greek  divines  what 
Cicero  was   to  the  Greek  philosophers  —  writers  of  popular  abstracts  in 

hat  which  in  his  hands  was,  in  theirs  aspired  to  be,  elegant  Lathi. 


58  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

stood  ^bove  the  other  cities  of  the  earth ;  the  centre 
of  commerce,  the  centre  of  affairs,  the  centre  of 
empire.  The  Christians,  like  the  rest  of  mankind, 
were  constantly  ebbing  and  flowing  out  of  Rome  and 
into  Rome.  The  church  of  the  capital  could  not  but 
assume  something  of  the  dignity  of  the  capital ;  it  was 
constantly  receiving,  as  it  were,  the  homage  of  all  the 
foreign  Christians,  who,  from  interest,  business,  ambi- 
tion, curiosity,  either  visited  or  took  up  their  residence 
in  the  Eternal  City. 

The  Roman  Church,  if  it  had  become  prematurely 
Latin,  would  have  been  isolated  and  set  apart  from  the 
rest  of  Christendom  ;  remaining  Greek,  it  became  also 
the  natural  and  inevitable  centre  of  Christianity.  The 
public  documents  of  the  Christian  world  spoke  through- 
out the  same  language ;  no  interpretation  was  neces- 
sary between  the  East  and  the  West.1  To  the  unity 
of  the  Church  this  was  of  infinite  importance.  The 
Roman  Christians  and  their  Bishop  were  the  consti- 
tuted guardians  and  protectors  of  what  may  be  called 
the  public  interests  of  Christianity.  In  Rome  they 
beheld,  or  had  the  earliest  intelligence  of,  every  revolu- 
tion hi  the  empire ;  they  had  the  first  cognizance  of 
all  the  Imperial  edicts  which  might  affect  the  brethren. 
On  them,  even  if  they  had  no  access  to  the  counsels  or 
to  the  palace  of  the  Emperor,  on  their  influence,  on 
their  conduct,  might  in  some  degree  depend  the  fate 
of  Christendom.  They  were  in  the  van,  the  first  to 
foresee  the  threatened  persecution,  the  first  to  suffer. 
The  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  long  as  the  Emperor  ruled  in 

1  As  late  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  after  the  Xovatian  schism, 
Pope  Cornelius  writes  in  Greek  to  Fabius  of  Antioch.  Eusebius  records  as 
lomething  new  and  extraordinary  that  letters  from  Cyprian  to  the  Asiatic 
bishops  are  in  Latin.  H.  E.  vi.  43. 


CHAP,  I.  ROME  THE  CENTRE  OF  CONTROVERSIES.     59 

Rome,  was  at  once  in  the  post  of  the  greatest  distinc- 
tion, and  in  that  of  the  greatest  difficulty  and  danger. 
The  Christian  world  would  look  with  trembling 
interest  on  his  conduct,  as  his  example  might  either 
glorify  or  disgrace  the  Church  ;  on  his  prudence  or  his 
temerity,  on  his  resolution  or  on  his  weakness,  might 
depend  the  orders  despatched  to  every  prefect  or  pro- 
consul in  the  Empire.  Local  oppressions  or  local  per- 
secutions would  be  confined  to  a  city  or  a  province ; 
in  Rome  might  be  the  signal  for  general  proscription. 
The  eyes  of  all  Christendom  must  thus  have  con- 
stantly been  fixed  on  Rome  and  on  the  Roman  Bishop. 
But  if  Rome,  or  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  thus  the 
centre  of  the  more  peaceful  influences  of  centre  of 
Christianity,  and  of  the  hopes  and  fears  of  controversies. 
the  Christian  world,  it  was  no  less  inevitably  the 
chosen  battle  field  of  her  civil  wars ;  and  Christianity 
has  ever  more  faithfully  recorded  her  dissensions  than 
her  conquests.  In  Rome  every  feud  which  distracted 
the  infant  community  reached  its  height ;  nowhere  do 
the  Judaizing  tenets  seem  to  have  been  more  obstinate, 
or  to  have  held  so  long  and  stubborn  a  conflict  with 
more  full  and  genuine  Christianity.  In  Rome  every 
heresy,  almost  every  heresiarch,  found  welcome  recep- 
tion. All  new  opinions,  all  attempts  to  harmonize 
Christianity  with  the  tenets  of  the  Greek  philosophers, 
with  the  Oriental  religions,  the  Cosmogonies,  the 
Theophanies,  and  Mysteries  of  the  East,  were  boldly 
agitated,  either  by  the  authors  of  the  Gnostic  About 
systems  or  by  their  disciples.  Valentinus  the  A>  D- 140> 
Alexandrian  was  himself  in  Rome,  so  also  was  Mar- 
cion  of  Sinope.  The  Phrygian  Montanus,  with  his 
prophetesses,  Priscilla  and  Maximilla,  if  not  present, 


60  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

had  their  sect,  a  powerful  sect,  in  Rome  and  in  Africa, 
In  Rome  their  convert,  for  a  time  at  least,  was  the 
Pope ;  in  Africa,  Tertullian.  Somewhat  later,  the 
precursors  of  the  great  Trinitarian  controversy  came 
from  all  quarters.  Praxeas,  an  Asiatic  ;  Theodotus,  a 
Byzantine ;  Artemon,  an  Asiatic ;  Noetus,  a  Smyr- 
niote,  at  least  his  disciples,  the  Deacon  Epigenes  and 
Cleomenes,  taught  at  Rome.  Sabellius,  from  Ptole- 
mais  in  Gyrene,  appeared  in  person  ;  his  opinions  took 
their  full  development  in  Rome.  Not  only  do  all  these 
controversies  betray  the  inexhaustible  fertility  of  the 
Greek  or  Eastern  imagination,  not  only  were  they  all 
drawn  from  Greek  or  Oriental  doctrines,  but  they  must 
have  been  still  agitated,  discussed,  ramified  into  their 
parts  and  divisions,  through  the  versatile  and  subtile 
Greek.  They  were  all  strangers  and  foreigners ;  not 
one  of  all  these  systems  originated  in  Rome,  in  Italy, 
or  in  Africa.1  On  all  these  opinions  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  almost  compelled  to  sit  in  judgment ;  he 
must  receive  or  reject,  authorize  or  condemn ;  he  was  a 
proselyte,  whom  it  would  be  the  ambition  of  all  to  gain. 
No  one  unfamiliar  with  Greek,  no  one  not  to  a  great 
extent  Greek  by  birth,  by  education,  or  by  habit,  could 
in  any  degree  comprehend  the  conflicting  theories. 

The  Judaizing  opinions,  combated  by  St.  Paul  in 
jtHUMng  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  maintained  their 
Christianity.  grOuncl  among  some  of  the  Roman  Chris- 

1 A  passage  of  Aulos  Gellius  illustrates  the  conscious  inadequacy  of  the 
Latin  to  express,  notwithstanding  the  innovations  of  Cicero,  the  finer  dis- 
tinctions of  the  Greek  philosophy:  Haec  Favorinum  dicentem  audivi  Graecd 
oratione,  cujus  sententias,  quantum  meminisse  potui,  retuli.  Amoenitates 
vero  et  copias  ubertatesque  verboram,  Latina  omnis  facundia  vix  quidem 
indipisci  potuerit.  Xoct.  Att.  xii.  Favorinus,  of  the  time  of  Hadrian, 
was  a  native  of  Aries  in  Gaul. 


CHAP.  I.  JUDAIZING  IN  ROME.  61 

tians  for  above  a  century  or  more  after  that  Apostle's 
death.  A  remarkable  monument  attests  their  power 
and  vitality.  There  can  be  slight  doubt  that  the 
author  of  that  singular  work,  commonly  The  Clemen. 
called  the  Clementina,  was  a  Roman,  or tina- 
rather  a  Greek  domiciled  in  Rome.1  Its  Roman  origin 
is  almost  proved  by  the  choice  of  the  hero  in  this 
earliest  of  religious  romances.  Clement,  who  sets 
forth  as  a  heathen  philosopher  in  search  of  truth,  be- 
comes the  companion  of  St.  Peter  in  the  East,  the  wit- 
ness of  his  long  and  stubborn  strife  with  his  great 
adversary,  Simon  the  Magician  ;  and  if  the  letter  pre- 
fixed to  the  work  be  a  genuine  part  of  it,2  becomes  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  in  the  see  of  Rome.  It  bears  hi 
its  front,  and  throughout,  the  character  of  a  romance ; 
it  can  hardly  be  considered  even  as  mythic  history. 
Its  groundwork  is  that  so  common  in  the  latest  Greek 
and  in  the  Latin  comedy,  and  in  the  Greek  novels  ; 
adventures  of  persons  cast  away  at  sea,  and  sold  into 
slavery ;  lost  children  by  strange  accidents  restored  to 
their  parents,  husbands  to  their  wives ;  amusing  scenes 
in  what  we  may  call  the  middle  or  mercantile  life  of 
the  times.  It  might  seem  borrowed,  in  its  incidents, 
from  a  play  of  Plautus  or  Terence,  or  from  their  origi- 
nals ;  a  kind  of  type  of  the  JEthiopics  of  Bishop  Heli- 
odorus,  or  the  Chserea  and  Callirhoe.  The  religious 
interest  is  still  more  remarkable,  and  no  doubt  faith- 

1  This  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  those  who,  in  later  days,  have  criti- 
cally investigated  the  Clementina — Schlieman,  Neander,  Baur,  Gieseler. 
ly&  K/U?//77f  'Pi.>/j.aio<;  uv,  in  init.     This  does  not  prove  much. 

2  I  entertain  some  doubt  on  this  point.   A  good  critical  edition  of  this 
•work,  in  its  various  forms,  is  much  to  be  desired.* 

*  There  are  now  two  good  editions  of  the  Clementina — 1.  by  Schwegler,  Stut- 
gard,  1847 ;  2.  The  last  and  best,  by  Dressel,  Oottingen,  1853;  besides,  3.  The  Latin 
translation  of  Rufinus,  by  Gersdorf,  Leipsic,  1838. 


62  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

fully  represents  the  views  and  tenets  of  a  certain  sect 
or  class  of  Christians.  It  is  the  work  of  a  Judaizing 
Christian,  according  to  a  very  peculiar  form  of  Ebiorr- 
itism.1  The  scene  is  chiefly  laid  in  Palestine  and  its 
neighborhood,  its  original  language  is  Greek.  The 
views  of  the  author  as  to  the  rank,  influence,  and  rela- 
tive position  of  the  Apostles,  is  among  its  most  singu- 
lar characteristics.  So  far  from  ascribing  any  primacy 
to  St.  Peter,  though  St.  Peter  is  throughout  the  leading 
personage,  James,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  is  the  acknowl- 
edged head  of  Christendom,  the  arbiter  of  Christian 
doctrine,  the  Bishop  of  Bishops,  to  whom  Peter  him- 
self bows  with  submissive  reverence.  Of  any  earlier 
visits  of  Peter  to  Rome  the  author  is  ignorant.  Clem- 

O 

ent  encounters  the  Apostle  in  Palestine ;  in  Palestine 
or  in  the  East  is  carried  on  the  whole  strife  with  Simon 
Magus.  Yet  Peter  is  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  to 
Peter  the  heathens  owe  their  Christianity.  More  than 
this,  there  is  a  bitter  hatred  to  St.  Paul,  which  betrays 
itself  in  brief,  covert,  sarcastic  allusion,  not  to  be  mis- 
taken in  its  object  or  aim.2  The  whole  purpose  of  the 
work  is  to  assert  a  Petrine,  a  Judai/in<r,  an  anti-Pau- 
line Christianity.  The  Gospel  is  but  a  republication 
of  the  Law,  that  is,  the  pure,  genuine,  original  Law, 
which  emanated  from  God.  God  is  light,  his  Wisdom 
or  his  Spirit  (these  are  identified  and  are  both  the  Son 
of  God)  has  dwelt  in  different  men,  from  Adam  to 

*This  is  abundantly  proved  by  Schlieman  and  by  N'eander. 

8  In  the  letter  of  St.  Peter,  rtvcf  yap  rdv  UTTO  cdvijv,  TU  61  ifiov  vofiiuov 
&irf6oKt[taaav  Kijpvyfta,  TOV  £;fi9poi>  inr&pu—ov  uvufidvnva  Kai  ^A»- 
apuArj  irpomjKUfievoi  6iiaano}j.av.  If  we  could  doubt  that  here  St.  Paul, 
not  Simon  Magus  is  meant,  the  allusions  xi.  35,  xvii.  19,  and  elsewhere,  to 
the  very  acts  and  words  of  St.  Paul  are  conclusive.  Compare  SthJieman, 
Die  Clementine,  74,  96,  534,  &c. 


CHAP.  I.  JTJDAIZING  IX  ROME.  63 

Jesus.  The  whole  world  is  one  vast  system  of  Dual- 
isms, or  Antagonisms.  The  antagonism  of  Simon 
Magus  to  St.  Peter  is  chiefly  urged  in  the  Clementine 
homilies ;  but  there  are  manifest  hints,  more  perhaps 
than  hints,  of  a  second  antagonism  between  Peter  and 
Paul,  the  teacher  of  Christianity  with  the  Law,  and 
the  teacher  of  Christianity  without  the  Law.  Here 
then  is  the  representative  of  what  can  scarcely  be  sup- 
posed an  insignificant  party  in  Rome  (the  various 
forms,  reconstructions,  and  versions  in  which  the  Clem- 
entina appear,  whole,  or  in  fragments,  attest  their 
wide-spread  popularity)  who  does  not  scruple  to  couple 
fiction  with  the  most  sacred  names.  Of  the  whole 
party  it  must  have  been  the  obvious  interest  to  exalt 
St.  Peter,  to  assert  him  as  the  founder,  the  Bishop  of 
the  true  Church  in  Rome ;  and  it  is  certainly  singular 
that  in  all  the  early  traditions,  which  are  more  than 
allusions  to  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  Simon  Magus  appears  as 
his  shadow.  Has,  then,  the  myth  grown  out  of  the  pure 
fiction,  or  is  the  fiction  but  an  expansion  of  the  myth  ? l 
At  all  events  these  works  are  witnesses  to  the  perpe- 
tuity and  strength,  to  a  late  period,  of  these  Judaizing 
opinions  in  Rome.2  Their  fictitious  form  in  no  way 
invalidates  their  authority  as  expressing  living  opinions, 
tenets,  and  sentiments.  If  not  Roman  (I  have  slight 
doubt  on  this  head),  there  is  an  attestation  to  the  wide- 
spread oppugnancy  of  a  Petrine  and  a  Pauline  party ; 

1  Strictly  speaking  the  authority  for  Simon  Magus  being  at  Rome  a 
earlier  than  that  for  St.  Peter.    The  famous  passage  of  Justin  Martyr  on 
the  inscription  Semoni  Sanco,  is  about  twenty  years  older  than  the  Epistle 
of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (A.  D.  171),  —  the  first  distinct  assertion  of  St. 
Peter  in  Rome.    Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  13, 14. 

2  Schlieman  assigns  the  Recognitions  to  some  time  between  212  and 
230  —  the  Clementina,  no  doubt,  are  of  an  earlier  date.    p.  327,  et  seqq. 


64  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

to  strong  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  the  relative  rank 
and  dignity  of  the  Apostles. 

Out  of  the  antagonism  between  Judaic  and  anti- 
controTen<y    Judaic  Christianity  arose  the  first  conflict,  in 

about  Easter.    ^^  ^    g^llOp  Qf  Rom6)  ^    tne  lea(}er    Of 

a  great  part  of  the  Christian  confederation,  assumed 
unwonted  authority.  Difference  of  opinion  did  not 
necessarily  lead  to  open  strife  —  from  difference  of  ob- 
servance it  was  unavoidable.  The  controversy  about 
A.  ».  109.  the  time  of  keeping  Easter,  or  rather  the 
Paschal  Feast,  had  slept  from  the  days  of  Polycarp 
and  Anicetus  of  Rome.  Towards  the  close  of  the 
second  century  it  broke  out  again.  Rome,  it  is  re- 
markable, now  held  the  anti-Judaic  usage  of  the  varia- 
ble feast,  and  in  this  concurred  with  the  churches  of 
Palestine,  of  Csesarea,  and  Jerusalem.  These  were 
chiefly  of  Gentile  descent,  and  probably  from  near 
neighborhood  to  the  Jews  were  most  averse  to  the 
usages  of  that  hostile  and  odious  race.  The  Asiatic 
churches  had  adhered  to  the  ancient  Jewish  custom, 
the  observance  of  the  14th  day  of  the  month  (Nisan). 
The  controversy  seems  to  have  been  awakened  in 
Rome  by  one  Blastus,1  denounced  as  endeavoring 
secretly  to  enslave  the  Church  to  Judaism.  The 
Bishop  Victor  deposed  the  obstinate  schismatic  from 
A.D.  m  the  Roman  Presbytery.  But  the  strife  was 
not  confined  to  Rome.  The  Asiatic  Christians,  under 
Polycrates  of  Ephesus,  maintained  their  own,  the  Ju- 
daic usage,  sanctioned,  as  was  asserted,  by  the  martyr 

lEst  praeterea  his  omnibus  Blastus  accedens,  qui  latenter  Judaismum 
vult  introducere.  Pascha  enim  dicit  non  aliter  custodiendutn  esse  nisi 
•ecundum  lotfem  Moysi  xiiii  mensis.  —  Prescript.  H:»Ti-t.  This  is  from 
an  addition,  probably  an  ancient  one,  to  the  Treatise  of  Tertullian. 


CHAP.  I.  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  EASTER.  65 

Polycarp,  by  Philip  the  Deacon,  and  even  by  St. 
John.  Victor,  supported  by  the  Bishops,  Theophilus 
of  the  Palestinian  Csesarea,  by  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem, 
by  some  in  Pontus,  in  Osroene,  in  Gaul,  and  by  Bac- 
chylides  of  Corinth,  peremptorily  demanded  a  Council 
to  judge  the  Asiatic  Bishops ;  threatened  or  actually 
pronounced  a  disruption  of  all  communion  with  those 
who  presumed  to  maintain  their  stubborn  difference 
from  himself  and  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world.1 
The  strife  was  appeased  by  the  interposition  of  Ire- 
nseus,  justly,  according  to  the  Ecclesiastical  historian, 
called  a  Man  of  Peace.  Irenaeus  was  Bishop  of 
Vienne  in  Gaul ;  and  so  completely  is  Christianity 
now  one  world,  that  a  Bishop  of  Gaul  allays  a  feud  in 
which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  in  alliance  with  the 
Bishops  of  Syria  and  of  the  remoter  East,  against  those 
of  Asia  Minor.  Africa  does  not  look  with  indifference 
on  the  controversy.  Irenaaus  had  already  written  an 
epistle  to  Blastus  in  Rome,  reproving  him  as  author  of 
the  schism  :  he  now  wrote  to  the  Bishop  Victor,  assert- 
ing the  right  of  the  Churches  to  maintain  their  own 
usages  on  such  points,  and  recommending  a  milder 
tone  on  these  ceremonial  questions.2 

It  was  not  till  the  Council  of  Nicea  that  Christen- 
dom acquiesced  in  the  same  Paschal  Cycle. 

The  reign  of  Commodus,  commencing  with  the  last 
twenty  years  of  the  second  century,  is  an  R«gn  of 

J     J  •>  Commodus 

epoch  in  the  history  of  Western  Christendom.  ISO-MS. 
The  feud  between  the   Judaizing  and  anti-Judaizing 

1  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  15. 

2  The  Latin  book  ascribed  to  Novatian,  against  the  Jewish  distinction  of 
meats,  shows  Judaism  still  struggling  within  the  church  on  its  most  vital 
peculiarities.    The  author  of  this  tract  wrote  also  against  circumcision  and 
the  Jewish  Sabbatb. 


66  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  Boos  I 

parties  in  Rome  seemed  to  expire  with  the  controversy 
about  Easter.  The  older  Gnostic  systems  of  Valenti- 
nus  and  Marcion  had  had  then*  day.  Montanism  was 
^expelled  from  Rome  to  find  refuge  in  Africa.  In 
Africa  Latin  Christianity  began  to  take  its  proper  form 
in  the  writings  of  Tertullian.  Rome  was  absorbed  in 
the  inevitable  disputes  concerning  the  Divinity  of  the 
Saviour,  the  prelude  to  the  great  Trinitarian  contro- 
versy. The  Bishops  of  Rome,  Eleutherius,  still  more 
Victor,  and  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century 
Zephyrinus  and  Callistus,  before  dimly  known  by  scat- 
tered allusions  in  Tertullian  and  Eusebius,  and  still 
later  writers,  have  suddenly  emerged  into  light  in  the 
contemporary  work,  justly,  to  all  appearance,  attrib- 
uted to  Hippolytus  Bishop  of  Portus.1 

1  The  Chevalier  Bunsen's  very  learned  work  has  proved  the  authorship 
of  Hippolytus  to  my  full  satisfaction  —  so  likewise  Dr.  Wordsworth  —  Hip- 
polytus. I  have  also  read  the  '  Hippolytus  and  Kallistus '  (just  published), 
by  J.  Dollinger,  the  church  historian ;  I  must  say  with  no  conviction  but 
of  the  author's  learning  and  ingenuity.  It  appears  to  me  that  M.  Dollin- 
ger's  arguments  against  M.  Bunsen  (e.  g.  from  the  ignorance  of  St.  Jerome) 
are  quite  as  fatal  to  his  own  theory.  I  still  think  it  most  probable  that 
Hippolytus  was  Bishop  of  Portus,  and  that  these  suburbicarian  bishops 
formed  or  were  part  of  a  kind  of  presbytery  or  college  with  the  bishops  of 
Rome.  I  hardly  understand  how  those  (seven)  bishops  (the  cardinal- 
bishops)  can  have  gained  their  peculiar  relation  to  Rome,  in  later  times, 
without  any  earlier  tradition  in  their  favor.  The  loose  language  of  later 
Greek  writers  might  easily  make  of  a  bishop,  a  member  of  such  a  presby- 
tery, a  bishop  in  Rome,  or  even  of  Rome.  More  than  one,  at  least,  of  these 
•writers  calls  Hippolytus  Bishop  of  Portus:  and  hence,  too,  he  may  have 
been  sometimes  described  as  Presbyter. 

Portus,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  was  a  very  considerable  town ;  but  a  new 
and  flourishing  haven  cannot  have  grown  up  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber, 
after  half,  at  least,  of  the  commerce  and  concourse  of  strangers  had  de- 
serted Rome,  after  the  foundation  of  Constantinople,  and  during  the  Bar- 
barian invasions.  Birkenhead  would  not  have  risen  to  rival  Liverpool 
excepting  in  a  most  prosperous  state  of  English  trade. 

I  cannot  but  regret  that  M.  DiJllinger's  book,  so  able,  and  in  some  re- 
spects so  instructive,  should  be  written  with  such  a  resolute  (no  doubt  con- 
scientious) determination  to  make  out  a  case.  It  might  well  be  entitled 


CHAP.  I.  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT   EASTER.  67 

The  Christians  from  the  death  of  M.  Aurelius, 
throughout  the  reign  of  Commodus,  en-  Marcia. 
joyed  undisturbed  peace  with  the  civil  government.1 
But  many  of  the  victims  of  the  persecution  under 
Aureli'is  were  pining  in  the  unwholesome  mines  of 
Sardinia.  Marcia,  the  favorite  concubine  of  the  Emperor 
Commodus,  whom  he  treated  as  his  wife,  and  who  held 
the  state  of  an  Empress,  was  favorable  to  the  Chris- 
tians :  how  far  she  herself  had  embraced  the  doctrines, 
how,  if  herself  disposed  to  Christianity,  she  reconciled 
it  with  her  life,  does  not  appear.2  The  Bishop  Victor 
did  not  scruple  (such  scruples  had  been  too  fastidiously 
rigorous)  to  employ  her  influence  for  the  release  of  his 

Apologia  pro  Callisto;  and  I  must  presume  to  say,  in  my  judgment,  a  most 
unfortunate  case  for  his  own  cause.  Were  I  polemically  disposed  as  to  the 
succession  to  the  Papacy,  the  authority  and  supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  even  the  unity  of  the  Church,  I  could  hardly  hope  for  so  liberal  a 
concession  as  that  twice  within  thirty  years,  during  the  early  part  of  the 
third  century,  rival  bishops,  one  a  most  distinguished  theologian,  should 
set  themselves  up  in  Rome  itself  against  the  acknowledged  Pope,  and  de- 
clare their  own  communities  to  be  the  true  Church.  Dcillinger  indeed 
could  not  but  see,  that,  whoever  the  author,  he  writes,  from  station,  from 
character,  or  from  influence,  as  quite  on  a  level  with  the  Pope ;  he  seems 
altogether  unconscious  of  awe,  and  even  of  the  respect  for  that  office,  which 
is  of  a  later  period.  The  Abb6  Cruice,  in  his  Histoire  de  1'Eglise  de  Rome 
sous  les  Pontificats  de  St.  Victor,  St.  Zephyrin,  et  de  St.  Calliste  (Paris, 
185G),  is  bolder  and  more  dutiful.  With  him  the  Popes  are  already  in- 
vested in  all  their  power  (of  excommunication),  in  their  ex  officio  wisdom 
and  holiness.  They  are  all,  by  the  magical  prefix  S,  Saints;  Victor  and 
Callistus,  on  the  authority  of  legend,  martyrs.  This  unhistoric  history  (not 
nnaniusing),  this  theology  without  precision,  seems  to  pass  in  France  for 
profound  learning. 

1  Asterius   Urbanus  apud  Eusebium,  H.  E.  v.  16.    Compare  Moyle's 
works,  ii.  p.  265.  —  The  peace  lasted  for  thirteen  years  after  the  death  of 
Maximilla  the  Montanist,  just  the  period  of  the  reign  of  Commo.lus. 

2  ov6ev  6e  inrelxe  ya/zer^f  yvvaiKof,  u/U,u  iruvra  iir^p^ev  oaa  ^£J3aary 
nT^v  TOV  Trupof.     Herodian,  i.  50.    Her  complicity  in  the  murder  of  Com- 
modus was  but  to  avert  her  own.    Commodus  must  have  been  insane; 
Marcia  strove,  even  with  tears,  to  dissuade  him  from  the  disgrace  of  ap- 
pearing in  public  as  a  gladiator  ;  his  two  ministers  joined  their  strong  re- 
monstrances.   Commodus,  in  revenge,  marked  down  her  name,  and  those 


68  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

exiled  brethren  :  they  all  returned  to  Rome.1  This 
Discord  in  state  of  peace  seemed  to  quicken  into  more 
active  life  the  brooding  elements  of  discord, 
and  to  invite  the  founders  of  new  systems,  or  their 
busy  proselytes,  to  Rome.  Already  had  spread  to 
Europe,  to  Africa,  to  Rome  itself,  from  the  depths  of 
Phrygia,  the  disciples  of  Montanus.  It  is  probable 
Montanism.  that  these  Montanist  or  kindred  prophecies 
of  coming  wars,  and  the  approaching  Dissolution  of 
the  World  (a  vaticination  which  involved  or  rather 
signified  to  the  jealous  Roman  ear  only  the  ruin  of  the 
Empire),  may  have  aided  in  exciting  the  religious  ter- 
ror and  indignation  of  the  philosophic  Emperor  and  of 
the  Roman  world  against  the  Christians,  and  so  have 
been  one  cause  of  the  persecutions  under  Marcus  Au- 
relius.2  Montanus  himself,  and  Maximilla,  his  chief 
prophetess,  seem  not  to  have  travelled  beyond  the  con- 
fines of  Phrygia.3  But  their  followers  swarmed  over 
Christendom.  They  dispersed  or  revealed  to  the  initi- 
ated in  countless  books,  the  visions  of  Montanus,  and 
his  no  less  inspired  female  followers,  Priscilla  and  Max- 
imilla.4 Montanism,  strictly  speaking,  was  no  heresy  ; 
in  their  notions  of  God  and  of  Christ,  these  sectaries 
departed  not  from  the  received  doctrine.  But  beyond, 

of  Laetus  and  Eclectus,  his  faithful  counsellors,  for  death.  The  fatal  tablet 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Marcia.  They  anticipated  their  own  doom  by  that 
of  Commodus.  Herodian,  ibid.  Marcia  afterwards  married  Kclectus.  — 
Dion  Cassius,  or  Xiphylin,  Ivii.  4. 

1  Refutatio  Hseresium,  p.  287. 

2  This  further  confirms  the  author's  view  of  the  cause  of  the  persecutions 
under  M.  Aurelius.    Hist,  of  Christianity,  Book  ii.  c.  7. 

8  Their  fate  was  so  obscure,  that  rumors  spread  abroad  among  their  ene- 
mies that  they  had  died  like  Judas,  had  hanged  themselves.  See  the  un- 
certain author  quoted  by  Eusebius.  H.  E.  v.  16. 

*  This  we  learn  from  the  Refutatio  Haeresium.    uv 
rtf  irfavuvrat,  p.  275. 


CHAP.  I.  MONTANISM.  69 

and  as  the  consummation  and  completion  of  the  Chris- 
tian Revelation,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  dwelt 
in  Montanus  and  the  Prophetesses.  At  intervals, 
throughout  the  annals  of  Christianity,  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  been  summoned  by  the  hopes,  felt  as  present  by  the 
kindled  imaginations,  been  proclaimed  by  the  passionate 
enthusiasm  of  a  few,  as  accomplishing  in  them  the  im- 
perfect revelation  ;  as  the  third  revelation  —  which  is  to 
supersede  and  to  fulfil  the  Law  and  the  Gospel.  This 
notion  will  appear  again  in  the  middle  ages  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Abbot  Joachim,  of  John  Peter  de  Oliva 
and  the  Fraticelli ;  in  a  milder  form  it  is  that  of  George 
Fox  and  Barclay.  The  land  of  heathen  orgies  was  the 
natural  birthplace  of  that  wild  Christian  mysticism  ;  it 
was  the  Phrygian  fanaticism  speaking  a  new  language ; 
and  as  the  ancient  Phrygian  rites  of  Cybele  found  wel- 
come reception  in  heathen  Rome,  so  also  that,  which 
was  appropriately  called  Cataphrygianism,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.1  A  stern  intolerant  asceticism,  which  had 
already  begun  to  harden  around  the  Christian  heart, 
a  rigor,  a  perfection  of  manners  as  of  creed  (so  they 
deemed  it)  beyond  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Gospel,  distinguished  the  Montanists,  who,  by  their 
own  asserted  superiority,  condemned  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  world.2  They  had  fasts  far  more  long  and 
severe,  their  own  festivals,  their  own  food,  chiefly 
roots  ; 3  they  held  the  austerest  views  on  the  connection 
of  the  sexes ;  if  they  did  not  absolutely  condemn, 
hardly  permitted  marriage  ;  a  second  marriage  was  an 

1  Compare  the  Super  alta  vectus  Atys  with  the  extravagancies  of  Mon- 
tanism. 

2  Tr/loof  (5£  avruv  ^dcvcovref  wf  fiefcadyKevai,  fj  £K  vofiov  not 
Kal  TUV  EvayyeTduv.    Euseb.  H.  E.  p.  275. 

8  The  author  of  the  Refutatio  speaks  of  their  S-rjpoQdyia. 


70  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

inexpiable  sin.  Their  visions  enwrapt  the  imagination, 
their  rigor  enthralled  minds  of  congenial  tempera- 
ment. They  seized  on  the  African  passions,  they  fell 
in  with  the  austerity,  they  satisfied  the  holy  ambition 
of  Tertullian,  who  would  not  rest  below  what  seemed 
the  most  lofty,  self-sacrificing  Christianity.  In  Rome 
itself  (so  Tertullian  writes,  with  mingled  indignation 
and  contempt)  the  Bishop  had  been  seized  with  ad- 
miration, had  acknowledged  the  inspiration  of  the 
Prophets  ;  he  had  issued  letters  of  peace  in  their  favor, 
which  had  tended  to  quiet  the  agitated  churches  of 
Asia  and  of  Phrygia.  But  at  the  instigation  of  Prax- 
eas  the  Heresiarch,  if  not  the  author,  among  the  first 
teachers  of  that  doctrine,  afterwards  denounced  as  Pa- 
tripassianism,  he  had  revoked  his  letters,  denied  their 
spiritual  gifts,  and  driven  out  the  Prophets  in  disgrace.1 
The  indignation  of  Tertullian  at  the  rejection  of  his 
Montanist  opinions  urges  him  to  arraign  the  Pope,  with 
what  justice,  to  what  extent  we  know  not,  as  having 
embraced  the  Patripassian  opinions  of  Praxeas.  This 
Monarchianism,  or,  as  it  was  branded  by  the  more 
Monarchian-  odious  name,  Patripassianism,  was  the  contro- 
versy which  raged  during  the  episcopate  of 
Victor,  Zephyrinus,  and  Callistus.2  It  called  forth  the 

1  Ita  duo  negotia  Diaboli  Praxeas  Roma  procuravit,  prophetiam  expulit 
et  hasresim  intulit.  Paracletum  ftigavit,  et  Patrem  crucifixit.  Adversus 
Praxeara,  c.  i.  Who  was  this  bishop  of  Rome?  It  has  been  usually  sup- 
posed Victor.  Neander  (Anti-Gnosticus,  p.  486)  argues  strongly,  I  think 
not  conclusively,  that  it  was  his  predecessor  Eleutherius.  The  spurious 
passage,  at  the  close  of  the  De  Pnescrip.  Hsret.,  which,  though  not  Ter- 
tullian's,  seems  ancient,  has  these  words:  —  "  Praxeas  quidem  haeresim  in- 
troduxit,  quam  Victorinus  (the  Bishop  Victor?)  corroborare  curavit." 

*  The  oppugnancy  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  mind  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
contrast  of  Tertullian  with  the  early  Greek  writers,  e.  g.  Justin  Martyr.  In 
Tertullian  there  is  no  courteous  respect  for  the  Greek  philosophy:  he  is 
dead  to  the  beauty  of  the  dying  hours  of  Socrates ;  his  Damon  is  a  devil. 


CHAP.  I.  MONARCHIANISM.  71 

4  Refutation  of  Heresies.'  That  paramount  doctrine 
of  Christianity,  the  nature  of  Christ,  his  relation  to  the 
primal  and  paternal  Godhead,  which  had  been  con- 
tested in  a  vaguer  and  more  imaginative  form  under 
the  Gnostic  systems,  must  be  brought  to  a  direct  issue. 
Rome,  though  the  war  was  waged  by  Greek  comba- 
tants in  the  Greek  language,  must  be  the  chosen  battle- 
field of  the  conflict.  There  was  division  in  the  Church. 
Pope  Victor,  a  stern  and  haughty  Prelate,  who  had 
demanded  implicit  submission  to  his  opinions  on  the 
question  of  Easter,  now  seemed  stunned  and  bewil- 
dered by  the  polemic  din  and  tumult.1  The  feebler 
Zephyrinus,  through  his  long  pontificate,  vacillated  and 
wavered  to  and  fro.  Callistus,  if  we  are  to  believe  his 
implacable  and  uncompromising  adversary,  not  only 
departed  from  the  true  faith,  but  left  a  sect,  bearing 
his  name,  to  perpetuate  his  reprehensible  opinions. 
From  Theodotus,  a  follower  of  Valentinus,  to  About 
Noetus  and  his  disciple  Epigonus,  there  was  A-D-  15a 

"  No  man  comes  to  God  but  by  Christ ;  of  these  things  the  heathen  knew 
nothing."  T.  de  Anim.  i.  39.  Compare  Hitter,  Gesch.  Christ.  Philosophic, 
p.  335.  Tertullian  cannot  conceive  immaterial  being.  Nihil  incorporale 
quod  non  est.  De  Cam.  Christ.  Neander,  iii.  p.  965. 

1  Victor  condemned  indeed  and  excommunicated  Theodotus,  who  re- 
duced the  Saviour  to  his  naked  manhood ;  he  was  but  an  image  of  Melchis- 
edek.  This  was  asserted  fifty  years  later,  when  the  doctrine  of  the  naked 
manhood  of  Christ  was  taught  in  its  most  obnoxious  form  by  Artemas,  and 
afterwards  by  Paul  of  Samosata.  These  teachers  appealed  to  the  unbroken 
tradition  of  the  church,  from  the  Apostles  to  their  own  days,  in  favor  of 
their  own  tenet.  It  was  answered  that  Victor  had  condemned  Theodotus, 
the  author  of  this  God-denying  apostacy;  on.  EiKTUp  rbv  anvrea  Qeodorov, 
rbv  apxi]y<Jv  ravrr/f  rrjt;  apvrfai&iov  uTroaraaiaf,  uneiiTjpv^s  Tfj<;  KOIVU- 
viaf,,  npuTov  einovTa  tyikov  avdpuirov  rbv  XpiaTov.  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  15 
Epiphan.  54, 55.  Compare  Pseudo-Tertullian  de  Prscscrip.  Hceret.  On  the 
Theodoti,  compare  Bunsen,  Hippolytus,  p.  92.  Yet  Victor,  it  should  seem, 
was  deceived  by  Praxeas  (see  note  above).  Florinus,  condemned  with 
Blastus  the  Quartodeciman,  was  a  Monarchian ;  but  there  were  manifestly 
many  shades  of  Monarchianism. 


72  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

a  constant  succession  of  strangers,  each  with  his  own 
About  A.B.  system.  The  shades  of  distinction  were  infi- 
nite, from  that  older  Ebionitish  or  Judaic 
doctrine,  which  kept  down  the  Saviour  to  mere  naked 
manhood,  hardly  superior  to  the  prophets ;  and  that 
which  approximated  to,  if  it  did  not  express  in  absolute 
terms,  the  full  Godhead  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  The 
broad  divisions,  up  to  a  certain  period,  had  been  three- 
fold: 1.  Those  who  altogether  denied  the  Godhead  — 
the  extreme  Ebionites.  2.  Those  who  denied  the 
Manhood — all  the  Gnostic  sects.  In  their  diverging 
forms  of  Docetism,  these  held  the  unreal,  or  but  seem- 
ing human  nature  of  the  Redeemer ;  whether,  as  Val- 
entinus  said,  the  JEon  Christ  had  descended  on  the 
man  Jesus,  the  psychic  or  animal  man  ;  or  as  Marcion, 
maintained  the  manhood  to  be  a  mere  phantasm.  3. 
All  the  rest  (even  the  Roman  Ebionites,  represented  by 
the  Clementine  Homilies)  acknowledged  some  Deity, 
some  efflux,  eradiation,  emanation  of  the  primal  God- 
head. The  Logos,  the  Wisdom,  the  Spirit  of  God 
(the  distinction  was  not  always  maintained,  nor  as  yet 
accurately  defined)  indwelt  in  various  manners  and 
degrees  within  the  Christ.  The  difficulty  was  to  claim 
the  plenary  Godhead  for  the  Son,  the  Redeemer,  with- 
out infringing  on  the  sole,  original  Principality  of  the 
Father;  to  admit  subordination  without  inferiority. 
So  grew  up  a  new  division  between  the  Monarchians, 
the  assertors  of  one  immutable  primary  Principle,  who 
yet  acknowledged  the  divinity  of  the  Redeemer ;  and 
those  who,  while  they  mostly  acknowledged  in  terms, 
were  impatient  of  any  real  or  definite  subordination. 
Each  drew  an  awful  conclusion  from  the  tenets  of  his 
adversary ;  each  used  an  opprobrious  term  which  ap- 


CHAP.  I.  MONARCHIANISM.  73 

pealed  to  the  resentful  passions.  The  Monarchians 
were  charged  with  the  appalling  doctrine,  that  the 
Father,  the  one  primary  Principle,  must  have  suffered 
on  the  cross ;  they  were  called  Patripassians.  They 
retorted  on  those  who  were  unable,  or  who  refused  to 
define  the  subordination  of  the  Son,  as  worshippers  of 
two  Gods,  Ditheists.  Sabellius,  who  at  first  repressed, 
or  brought  forward  his  views  with  reserve  and  caution. 

O  * 

attempted  to  mediate,  and  was  disdainfully  cast  aside 
by  both  parties.  The  notion  of  the  same  God  under 
three  manifestations,  forms,  or  names,  seemed  to  annul 
the  separate  personality  of  each.1 

Pope  Victor  saw  but  the  beginning  of  this  strife. 
With  Pope  Zephyrinus,  whose  Episcopate  of  A.D.  201-219. 
nineteen  years  commences  with  the  third  century,  ap- 
pears his  antagonist,  the  antagonist  of  his  successor 
Callistus,  the  author  of  the  Refutation  of  all  Heresies. 
According  to  his  own  distinct  statement,  this  writer 
was  not  a  casual  and  transient  visitor  in  Rome,  but 
domiciled  in  the  city  or  in  its  neighborhood,  invested 
in  some  high  public  function,2  and  holding  acknowl- 
edged influence  and  authority.  He  describes  himself 
as  the  head  of  what  may  be  called  the  orthodox  party, 
resisting  and  condemning  the  wavering  policy  of  one 
Pope,  actually  excommunicating  another,  and  handing 
him  down  to  posterity  as  an  heresiarch  of  a  sect  called 
after  his  name.  Who  then  was  this  antagonist  ?  What 
rank  and  position  did  he  hold  ?  Fifty  years  A.D.  201-250. 

1  Sabellius,  according  to  the  Refutation  of  Heresies,  might  have  been 
kept  within  the  bounds  of  orthodoxy,  had  he  not  been  driven  into  ex- 
tremes by  the  injudicious  violence  of  the  Pope. 

20rigen  visited  Rome  about  the  year  211,  but  his  visit  was  not  long; 
and,  with  all  his  fame  and  learning,  to  the  height  of  which  he  had  not  at- 
tained, he  was  a  stranger,  without  rank  or  authority.  He  was  not  even  in 
orders. 


74  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

later1  the  Roman  church  comprehended,  besides  its 
Bishop,  forty-six  Presbyters,  and  seven  Deacons,2  with 
their  subordinate  officers.  Each  Presbyter  doubtless 
presided  over  a  separate  community,  each  with  its  ba- 
silica, scattered  over  the  wide  circuit  of  the  city :  they 
were  the  primary  Parish  Priests  of  Rome.  But  be- 
sides these,  were  Suburbicarian  Bishops  of  the  adjacent 
towns,  Ostia,  Tibur,  Portus,  and  others  (six  or  seven), 
who  did  not  maintain  their  absolute  independence  on  the 
metropolis,  each  in  the  seclusion  of  his  own  community ; 
they  held  their  synods  hi  Rome,  but  as  yet  with  Greek 
equality  rather  than  Roman  subordination  ;  they  were 
the  initiatory  College  of  Cardinals  (who  still  take  some 
of  their  tides  from  these  sees),  but  with  the  Pope  as 
one  of  this  coequal  college,  rather  than  the  dominant, 
certainly  not  the  despotic,  head. 

Of  all  these  suburban  districts  at  this  time  Portus 
was  the  most  considerable,  and  most  likely  to  be  occu- 
pied by  a  -distinguished  prelate.  Portus,  from  the 
reign  of  Trajan,  had  superseded  Ostia  as  the  haven 
of  Rome.  It  was  a  commercial  town  of  growing 
extent  and  opulence,  at  which  most  of  the  strangers 
from  the  East  who  came  by  sea  landed  or  set  sail. 
Through  Portus,  no  doubt,  most  of  the  foreign  Chris- 
Hippoiytus.  tians  found  their  way  to  Rome.3  Of  this 
city  at  the  present  time,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted, 
Hippolytus  was  the  bishop,  Hippolytus  who  afterwards 
rose  to  the  dignity  of  saint  and  martyr,  and  Avhose 

1  Calculating  from  the  accession  of  Zephyrinus  to  the  Decian  persecution. 
Letter  of  Pope  Cornelius  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  4:2. 

2  Each  deacon  appears  to  have  comprehended  under  his  charitable  super- 
intendence two  out  of  the  fourteen  regions  of  the  city. 

'  In  the  letters  of  ./Eneas  Sylvius  there  is  a  curious  account  of  a  visit 
which  he  made  to  the  site  of  this  ancient  bishopric,  then  held  by  one  of  his 
friends.  Dr.  Wordsworth  has  some  interesting  details  concerning  Portus. 


CHAP.  I.  FOETUS.  75 

statue,  discovered  in  the  Laurentian  cemetery,  now 
stands  in  the  Vatican.  Conclusive  internal  evidence 
indicates  Hippolytus  as  the  author  of  the  Refutation 
of  all  Heresies.  If  any  one  might  dare  to  confront 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  it  was  the  Bishop  of  Portus. 

Zephyrinus,  according  to  his  unsparing  adversary, 
was  an  unlearned  man ;  ignorant  of  the  Ian-  Pope  zephy. 
guage  and  definitions  of  the  Church ;  avari-  219. 
cious,  venal,  of  unsettled  principles ;  not  holding  the 
balance  between  conflicting  opinions,  but  embracing 
adverse  tenets  with  all  the  zeal,  of  which  a  mind 
so  irresolute  was  capable.  He  was  now  a  disciple  of 
Cleomenes,  the  successor  of  Noetus,  and  teacher  of 
Noetianism  in  Rome  (Noetus  held  the  extreme  Mo- 
narchian  doctrine,  so  as  to  be  obnoxious  to  the  charge 
of  Patripassianism),  now  of  Sabellius,  who,  become 
more  bold,  had  matured  his  scheme,  which  was  odious 
alike  to  the  other  two  contending  parties.  Zephyrinus 
was  entirely  governed  by  the  crafty  Callistus  ;  and 
thus  constantly  driven  back,  by  his  fears  or  confusion 
of  mind,  to  opposite  tenets,  and  involved  in  the  most 
glaring  contradictions.  At  one  time  he  publicly  used 
the  startling  language :  "I  acknowledge  one  God, 
Jesus  Christ,  and  none  beside  him,  that  was  born  and 
suffered ;  "  at  another,  he  refuted  himself,  "  It  was  not 
the  Father  that  died,  but  the  Son."  So  through  the 
long  episcopate  of  Zephyrinus  there  was  endless  con- 
flict and  confusion.  The  author  of  the  Refutation 
steadily,  perseveringly,  resisted  the  vacillating  Pontiff; 
he  himself  was  branded  with  the  opprobrious  appella- 
tion of  Ditheist. 

Callistus,  who  had  ruled  the  feeble  mind  Callistus 

/>    n  •  11-  P°Pe-     219~ 

or  Zephyrinus,  aspired  to  be  his  successor ;  223. 


76  LATDf  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

as  head,  it  should  seem,  of  one  of  the  contending 
parties,  he  attained  the  object  of  his  ambition.  The 
memory  of  theologic  adversaries  is  tenacious.  His 
enemies  were  not  likely  to  forget  the  early  life  of 
Callistus,  which  must  have  been  public  and  notorious, 
at  least  among  the  Christians.  He  had  been  a  slave 
in  the  family  of  Carpophorus,  a  wealthy  Christian,  in 
the  Emperor's  household.  He  was  set  up  by  his  mas- 
ter in  a  bank  in  the  quarter  called  the  Piscina  Publica. 
The  Christian  brethren  and  widows,  on  the  credit  of 
the  name  of  Carpophorus,  deposited  their  savings  in 
this  bank  of  Callistus.  He  made  away  with  the  funds, 
was  called  to  account,  fled,  embarked  on  board  a  ship, 
was  pursued,  threw  himself  into  the  sea  —  was  rescued 
—  brought  back  to  Rome,  and  ignominiously  con- 
signed to  hard  labor  in  the  public  workhouse.  The 
merciful  Carpophorus  cared  not  for  his  own  losses,  but 
for  those  of  the  poor  widows ;  he  released  the  prisoner 
on  the  pretext  of  collecting  moneys,  which  he  pretended 
to  be  due  to  him.  Callistus  raised  a  riot  in  a  Jewish 
synagogue,  was  carried  before  the  Prefect  Fuscianus, 
scourged  and  transported  to  the  mines  in  Sardinia, 
On  the  release  of  the  exiles  through  the  intercession 
of  Marcia,  Callistus,  though  not  on  the  list  furnished 
by  the  Bishop  Victor,  persuaded  Hyacinthus,  the  Eu- 
nuch appointed  to  bear  the  order  for  the  release  of 
the  captives  to  the  governor,  to  become  responsible 
for  his  liberation  also.1  He  returned  to  Rome;  the 
Pope  Victor,  though  distressed  by  the  affair,  was  too 

l  This  "»gnln-  pictnra  of  Roman  and  Christian  middle  life  has  an  air  of 
minute  truthfulness,  though  possibly  somewhat  darkened  by  polemic  hos- 
tility. Some  hare  supposed  that  they  detect  a  difference  in  the  style  from 
the  rest  of  the  treatise.  I  perceive  none  but  that  which  is  natural  in  a 
from  polemic  or  argumentative  -writing  to  simple  narrative 


CHAP.  I.  THE  PATRIPASSIAKS.  77 

merciful  to  expose  the  fraud ;  Callistus  was  sent  to 
Antium  with  a  monthly  allowance  for  his  maintenance. 
At  Antium  (for  this  release  of  the  Sardinian  prisoners 
must  have  been  at  the  commencement  of  Victor's 
episcopate)1  he  remained  nine  or  ten  years.  Zephy- 
rinus  recalled  him  from  his  obscure  retreat ;  and  placed 
him  over  the  cemetery.2  By  degrees  the  Pope  entirely 
surrendered  himself  to  the  guidance  of  Callistus. 

The  first  act  of  Callistus  on  his  advancement  to  the 
bishopric  was  the  excommunication  of  Sabellius,  an 
act  cordially  approved  by  Hippolytus,  and  ascribed  to 
the  fear  of  himself.  Callistus  formed  a  new  scheme, 
by  which  he  hoped  to  elude  the  charge  on  one  side  of 
Patripassianism,  on  the  other  of  Ditheism.  Hippoly- 
tus denounces  his  heresy  without  scruple  or  reserve.3 

The  suggestion  that  it  is  a  Novatian  interpolation  is  desperate  and  prepos- 
terous. Novatian  was  not  heard  of  till  thirty  years  after,  his  followers,  of 
course,  later.  What  possible  motive  could  they  have  for  blackening  the 
memory  of  Zephyrinus  and  Callistus?  Novatian  was  no  enemy  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome;  had  no  design  to  invalidate  his  powers.  He  was  the 
enemy  of  Cornelius,  his  successful  rival  for  the  see;  he  aspired  himself  to 
be  bishop  —  was,  in  fact,  anti-Pope.  The  great  point  on  which  Novatian 
made  his  stand  had,  indeed,  been  mooted,  but  did  not  become  a  cause  of 
fatal  division  till  after  the  persecution  of  Decius,  the  treatment  of  the  Lapsi 
—  those  who  in  the  persecution  had  denied  the  faith. 

Hippolytus,  it  is  true,  in  the  poetic  legend  of  Prudentius  (who  borrows 
the  circumstances  of  his  martyrdom  from  the  destiny  of  his  namesake  in 
the  tragedy  of  Euripides),  is  charged  with  holding  the  tenets  of  Novatus, 
which  he  recanted,  and  in  his  death-agony  became  a  good  Catholic.  But 
the  author  of  the  Refutation  of  all  Heresies  can  hardly  have  been  involved 
in  the  schism  of  Novatian,  who  did  not  appear  till  so  many  years  after 
the  death  of  Callistus.  Novatian,  with  such  a  partisan,  would  not  have 
sought  out  three  obscure  bishops  for  his  ordination.  I  cannot  but  think 
the  Spanish  legendary  poet  of  the  fourth  century  utterly  without  historical 
authority,  —  possibly  he  confounded  different  Hippolyti. 

1  The  release  of  the  prisoners  took  place  probably  in  the  tenth  year  of 
Commodus,  the  year  of  Victor's  accession,  A.D.  190. 

2  We  are  naturally  reminded  of  the  cemetery  called  of  Callistus.    Arin- 
ghi  supposes  this  cemetery  older  than  the  time  of  Callistus. 

8  Callistianism  differed  but  slightly  from  Noetism.    God  and  his  divine 


78  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  1. 

Christian  doctrine,  the  profound  mystery  of  the 
Saviour's  Godhead,  was  not  the  only  subject  of  col- 
lision between  the  adverse  parties  in  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  difficult  reconciliation  of  Christian  ten- 
derness and  Christian  holiness  could  hardly  fail  to 
produce  a  milder  and  more  austere  party  throughout 
Christendom.  The  first  young  influences  of  Mona- 
chism,  the  perfection  claimed  by  celibacy  over  the  less 
ostentatious  virtue  of  domestic  purity,  the  notion  of 
the  heroism  of  self-mortification,  led  to  inevitable  dif- 
ferences. Montanism,  with  its  fanatic  rigor,  had 
wrought  up  this  strife  to  a  great  height.  The  more 
severe,  who  did  not  embrace  the  Montanist 


€0  Christum  . 

EI  -  -  tenets,  would  not  be  surpassed  by  heretics  in 
self-abnegation.  The  lenity  to  be  shown  to  penitents, 
the  condescension  to  the  weaknesses  of  flesh  and  blood, 
raised  perpetual  disputes.  Callistus  throughout,  un- 
like those  whose  early  lives  demand  indulgence,  who 
are  usually  the  most  severe,  was  himself  indulgent  to 
others  ;  and  this  was  the  dominant  tone  at  the  time  in 
the  Roman  Church.  The  author  of  the  Refutation, 
though  uninfected  by  Montanist  tenets,  inveighs  against 
the  leniency  of  Callistus,  as  asserting  that  even  a 
bishop,  guilty  of  a  deadly  sin,  was  not  to  be  deposed. 
The  nature  of  this,  according  to  Hippolvtus.  deadly 
cm.  which  Callistus  treated  with  such  offensive  ten- 
derness, appears  from  the  next  sentence:1  it  related 

Word  were  one  :  together  they  were  the  Spirit,  the  one  Spiritual  Being. 
This  Spirit  took  flesh  of  the  Virgin;  ao  the  Father  was  in  the  Son,  but  he 
suffered  not  as  the  Son,  bat  with  the  Son. 

1  Oirof  Uoyftanatv  Siruf  d  hrieanrof  oftaprot  TI,  d  tat  xpdf  flavarov, 
IB)  6dv  Kararideadac  T£TI  rotrro*  jpfarTO  bcioiunroi  «a2  vpeojSvrcptx  cat 
Stdfovoi  fcyofioi  Kai  rpifafioi  fadiaraa&tu  «c  */-r,fX/i?.  El  &  «a2  rif  tv 
K&jpy  «"  7<V*f  >  pivav  TO*  rotovrov  b>  TU  Kftqpu  u$  p)  Tjpaprijiurra.  ix. 
12.  p.  290. 


CHAP.  I.      CONTROVERSY  ON  CHRISTIAN  MORALS.  79 

to  that  grave  question  which  had  begun  to  absorb 
the  Christian  mind  —  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 
That  usage,  which  has  always  prevailed,  and  still 
prevails,  in  the  Greek  Church,  as  yet  seems  to  have 
satisfied  the  more  rigorous  at  Rome.  Those  who  were 
already  married  when  ordained,  retained  their  wives. 
But  a  second  marriage,  or  marriage  after  ordination, 
was  revolting  to  the  incipient  monkery  of  the  Church. 
But  Callistus,  according  to  his  implacable  adversary, 
went  further,  he  admitted  men  who  had  been  twice, 
even  thrice  married,  to  holy  orders ;  he  allowed  those 
already  in  orders  to  marry.  His  more  indulgent  party 
appealed  to  the  evangelical  argument,1  "  Who  art 
thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ? "  They 
alleged  the  parables  of  the  tares  and  wheat,  the  clean 
and  unclean  beasts  in  the  ark.  This  the  more  austere 
denounced  as  criminal  flattery  of  the  passions  of  the 
multitude ;  as  the  sanction  of  voluptuousness  pro- 
scribed by  Christ,  with  the  base  design  of  courting 
popularity,  and  swelling  the  ranks  of  their  faction. 
There  is  a  heavier  charge  behind.  The  widows,  if 
they  could  not  contain,  were  not  only  allowed  to 
many,  but  to  take  a  slave  or  freedman,  below  their 
own  rank,  who  could  not  be  their  legal  husband.2 
Hence  abortions,  and  child  murders,  to  conceal  these 
disgraceful  connections.  Callistus,  therefore,  is  sanc- 
tioning adultery  and  murder.  But  even  this  is  not  the 
height  of  his  offence,  he  had  dared  to  administer  a 
second  baptism.  So  already  had  ecclesiastical  offences 
become  worse  in  the  estimation  of  vehement  religious 

i  R.  H.  p.  290. 

*  The  widow?,  who  had  taken  on  themselves  the  office  of  deaconesses, 
»nd  who,  though  not  bound  by  vow,  were  under  a  kind  of  virtual  en- 
gagement against  second  marriage. 


80  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

partisans  than  moral  enormities.  Here,  at  least,  it  is 
fair  to  mistrust  the  angry  adversary.  But  this  con- 
flict between  a  more  indulgent  and  a  more  austere 
party  in  Rome,  and  some  declaration  of  the  Pope 
Zephyrinus,  probably,  rather  than  Callistus,  —  but 
Zephyrinus  acting  under  the  influence  of  Callistus  — 
on  the  connection  between  the  sexes,  had  already  ex- 
cited the  indignation  of  Tertullian  in  Africa,  now  still 
more  hardened  by  his  Montanist  tenets.  "  The  Bishop 
of  Bishops  had  promulgated  an  edict,  that  he  would 
remit  to  penitents  even  the  sins  of  adultery  and  for- 
nication. This  license  to  lust  is  issued  in  the  strong- 
hold of  all  wicked  and  shameless  lusts." l 

Persecution  restored  that  peace  to  the  Roman 
Church,  which  had  been  so  much  disturbed  through- 
out her  uninvaded  prosperity,  during  the  tolerant  rule 
of  Alexander  Severus.  In  the  sudden  outburst  of 
hostility,  during  the  short  reign  of  the  brutal  Thracian 
Maximin,  Pontianus,  who  had  followed  Urban  I.,  the 
A.D.235.  successor  of  Callistus,  and  with  him  a  pres- 
byter, Hippolytus,  suffered  sentence  of  deportation  to 
the  usual  place  of  exile  —  Sardinia.  There  Pontianus 
is  said  (nor  is  there  much  reason  to  doubt  the  tradi- 
tion) to  have  endured  martyrdom.  Hippolytus,2  ac- 
cording to  the  poetic  legend  in  Prudentius  of  two 
centuries  later,  suffered  in  the  suburbs  of  Rome.3 

3  De  Pudicitia.  —  Did  the  title  Episcopus  Episcoporum,  which  I  think 
cannot  but  mean  Rome,  arise  from  his  superiority  to  the  suburbicarian 
bishops?  See,  however,  on  this  title  the  note  of  Baluzius  on  the  vii.  Con- 
cil.  Carthag. —  or  in  Routh,  ii.  153. 

2  Compare  Bunsen.  The  title  of  Presbyter  assigned  to  Hippolytus,  if,  as 
is  most  probable,  the  same  with  the  author  of  the  Refutation  and  other 
works,  even  if  he  were  Bishop  of  Portus,  raises  no  difficulty.  These 
bishops  were  members  of  the  Roman  Presbytery. 

8  At  this  time,  more  likely  than  fifteen  years  afterwards,  in  the  Decian 
persecution.  Legend  respects  not  dates. 


CHAP.  I.  DECIAN  PERSECUTION.  81 

The  Decian  persecution,  about  thirty  years  after  the 
death  of  Callistus,  was  the  birth  epoch  of  Dedan  perge_ 
Latin  Christianity ;  Cyprian  its  true  parent.  cutioa- 
Rome,  the  recognized  metropolis  of  the  West,  Car- 
thage, the  metropolis  of  the  African  churches,  are 
in  constant  and  regular  intercourse.1  There  is  first  a 
Punic  league,  afterwards  at  least  a  threatened  Punic 
war.  In  the  persecution  the  churches  are  brought  into 
close  alliance  by  common  sympathies,  common  perils, 
common  sufferings,  singularly  enough  by  common 
schisms ;  slowly,  but  no  doubt  at  length,  by  their 
common  language.  The  same  Imperial  edict  endan- 
gers the  life  of  the  Roman  and  of  the  Carthaginian 
Bishop ;  malcontents  from  Rome  find  their  way  to 
Carthage,  from  Carthage  to  Rome.  The  same  man, 
Novatus,  stirs  up  rebellion  against  episcopal  authority 
in  Rome  and  in  Carthage ;  the  letters  of  the  churches 
to  each  other  are  promulgated  in  Latin,  though  at  a 
period  somewhat  later  those  from  the  African  churches 
sent  into  the  East  are  distinguished  from  those  which 
came  from  Rome,  as  written  in  the  Roman  tongue.2 
So  too  in  Rome  and  in  Carthage  (in  Carthage  in  the 
most  mature  and  perfect  form,  from  the  master  mind 
of  Cyprian)  appear  the  Roman  strength  and  the 
Roman  respect  for  law,  the  imperious  assertion  of 
hierarchical  despotism.  In  the  community  there  is 
trembling  deference  for  hierarchical  authority,  though 
at  first  with  a  bold  but  short  resistance.  There 
is  an  anti-Bishop  in  Rome  and  in  Carthage.  But 

1  The  intercourse  between  Carthage  and  Rome,  on  account  of  the  corn 
trade  alone,  was  probably  more  regular  and  rapid  than  in  any  other  part 
of  the  empire  —  mutatis  mutandis  —  like   that  between   Marseilles   and 
Algeria. 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.    See  above,  p.  58,  note. 


82  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

in  both  Churches  discipline  becomes  of  equal  im- 
portance with  doctrine ;  the  unity  of  the  Church  is 
made  to  depend  on  obedience  to  its  outward  polity ; 
rebellion  to  episcopal  authority  becomes  as  great  a 
crime  as  erroneous  opinion ;  schism  as  hateful  as 
heresy. 

Fabianus,  under  Deems,  is  the  first  martyr  Bishop 
Fibunus  of  of  Rome,  whose  death  rests  on  certaiii 
A.B.249.  mony.1  The  papal  chair  remained  vacant 
for  a  short  time ;  either  the  Christians  dared  not  choose, 
Cyprian  of  or  no  one  dared  to  assume  the  perilous  rank. 
c**Uuge'  Cyprian  of  Carthage  on  the  same  occasion, 
not  from  timidity,  but  from  prudent  and  parental  re- 
gard for  his  flock,  retired  into  a  safe  retreat  There 
were  already  divisions  in  the  Church  of  Carthage. 
NoT»tus.  Novatus,  a  turbulent  presbyter,  with  five 
others,2  had  been  jealous  of  the  elevation  of  Cvprian. 
Novatus,  whose  character  is  darkly  drawn  by  Cyprian, 
had  presumed  to  interfere  with  the  bishop's  prerogative 
(a  crime  hardly  less  heinous  than  peculation  and  licen- 
tiousness) and  himself  ordained  a  deacon,  Felicissimus. 
This  hostile  party  would  no  doubt  heap  contempt  on 
the  base  flight  of  Cyprian  ;  while  they,  less  in  danger, 
seemed  to  have  remained  to  brave  the  persecutor. 
The  party  took  upon  themselves  the  episcopal  func- 
tions.8 On  their  own  authority,  too,  the  faction  of 
Novatus  determined,  in  the  more  lenient  way,  the 
great  question,  the  reception  of  the  fallen,  those  who 

1  Perhaps  that  of  Pontianus  may  be  above  suspicion.    (See  above.) 

*  It  is  doubtful  whether  Novatus  was  one  of  these  five. 

*  Cvprian,  from  his  retreat,  sent  two  bishops  to  collect  and  administer 
the  alms,  probably  of  great  amount,  in  Carthage.     Walch  conjectures,  with 
much  probability,  that  Felicissimus  may  have  resented  this  intrusion  on  hit 
province  as  Deacon. 


CHAP.  I.  NOVATUS  AND  NOVATIAN.  83 

had  denied  the  faith  and  offered  sacrifice,  and  those 
who,  with  more  pardonable  weakness,  had  bought  cer- 
tificates of  submission  from  the  venal  officers.1  Cyp- 
rian in  vain  remonstrated  from  his  retreat :  he  too 
had  somewhat  departed  from  his  old  sternness,  when 
he  had  shut  the  doors  of  the  Church  against  the  rene- 
gades. He  was  not  now  for  inflexible  and  peremptory 
rejection  of  those  weak  brethren,  for  whom  he  may  have 
learned  some  sympathy  ;  he  insisted  only  on  their  less 
hasty,  more  formal  reception,  after  penance,  confession, 
imposition  of  hands  by  the  bishop.  Each  case  was  to 
be  separately  considered  before  an  assembly  of  the 
bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  the  faithful  who  had  stood,2 
and  the  laity  ;  so  popular  still  was  Cyprian's  view  of 
episcopal  authority.  Cornelius,  in  Rome,  Cornelius 
had  been  elected  bishop  on  the  return  of  Rome?0 
peace.  The  same  question  distracted  his  Church,  bi.* 
with  more  disastrous  results.  The  same  Novatus  was 
now  in  Rome :  true  only  to  his  own  restlessness,  he 
here  embraced  the  severer  party,  at  the  head  of  which 
stood  a  leader,  by  some  strange  coincidence,  almost  of 
the  same  name  with  his  own,  Novatian.3  This  Novatian. 
man  had  been  a  Stoic  philosopher.  His  hard  nature, 
in  the  agony  of  wrestling  after  truth,  before  he  had 
found  peace  in  Christianity,  broke  down  both  body  and 
mind.  His  enemies  afterwards  declared  that  he  had 

1  They  were  called  Libellatici.    Compare  Mosheim  de  Reb.  Christian, 
ante  Constant.  M.,  pp.  482,  489. 

2  Throughout  this  is  his  language  —  Viderint  laici,  hoc  quomodo  curent. 
Ep.  liii.,  also  xi.  xxix.  xxxi.     Compare  Concil.  Carthag.  iii.,  where  it  is 
among  the  objections  that  a  fallen  had  been  received  sine  petitu  et  con- 
jcientia  plebis.    Mansi  sub  ann.  252,  or  Routh,  vol.  ii.  p.  74. 

8  The  Greek  writers  all  called  Novatian,  Novatus.  We  are  on  historical 
ground,  or  what  a  myth  might  be  made  out  of  these  two  Innovators!  — 
Novatus  and  Novatian. 


84  LATIN  CHRISTIANTir.  BOOK  L 

been  possessed  ;  the  demon  was  not  completely  exor- 
cised. He  had  only  received  what  was  called  Clinic 
baptism  (an  imperfect  rite)  on  what  was  supposed  his 
death-bed.  The  Stoic  remained  within  the  Christian ; 
he  became  a  rigid  ascetic.  Novatian  sternly  declared 
that  no  mercy  but  that  of  God  (from  that  he  did  not 
exclude  the  fallen)  could  absolve  from  the  inexpiable 
sin  of  apostacy  :  the  Church,  which  received  such  un- 
absolvable  sinners  into  its  bosom,  was  unclean,  and 
ceased  to  be  the  Church.  Novatian  might  have  con- 
tented himself,  like  the  Thraseas  of  old,  with  protest- 
ing against  the  abuse  of  episcopal  despotism,  no  less 
abuse  because  it  erred  on  the  side  of  leniency.  When 
charged  with  ambitious  designs  on  the  Bishopric  of 
Rome,  of  having  been  the  rival,  and  therefore  having 
become  the  enemy,  of  Cornelius,  he  solemnly  declared 
tf.at  he  preferred  the  solitary  virtue  and  dignity  of  the 
ascetic  ;  it  was  only  by  compulsion  that  he  took  upon 
himself  the  function  of  an  Antipope.  Cyprian  attrib- 
utes the  schism  to  the  malignant  influence  of  Novatus : 
— "  In  proportion  as  Rome  is  greater  than  Carthage, 
so  was  the  sin  of  Novatus  in  Rome  more  heinous  than 
that  in  Carthage.  In  Carthage  he  had  ordained  a  dea- 
con, in  Rome  he  had  made  a  bishop."  1  Novatian  was 
publicly  but  hastily  and  irregularly  consecrated,  as 
Bishop  of  Rome,  by  three  bishops,  it  is  said,  of  obscure 
towns  in  Italy.  Novatian  was  in  doctrine  rigidly  or- 
thodox ;  but  in  Cyprian's  view  (who  makes  common 
cause  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome  against  the  common 
enemy)  what  avails  orthodoxy  of  doctrine  in  one  out 

1  Plane  quoniam  pro  magnitudine  sua  debeat  Carthaginem  Roma  prae- 
cedere,  illic  majora  et  graviora  commisit.  Qui  istic  adversus  ecclesiam  di- 
aconum  fecerat  illic  episcopum  fecit.  Epist.  xlix.  The  preeminence  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  arises  out  of  the  preeminent  greatness  of  Rome. 


CHAP.  I.  NOVATUS  AND  NOVATIAN.  85 

of  the  Church  ? 1  He  is  self-excluded  from  the  pale 
of  salvation.  Cyprian  had  grounds,  if  not  for  his  ab- 
horrence, for  his  fears  of  Novatianism.  It  aspired 
itself  to  be  the  Church,  to  set  up  rival  bishops  through- 
out Christendom ;  the  test  of  that  Church  was  this  un- 
compromising, inflexible  severity.  Even  in  Carthage 
arose  another  bishop,  Fortunatus,  who  asserted  himself 
to  have  been  consecrated  by  twenty-three  Numidian 
bishops.  Cyprian,  not  without  bitterness,  while  he  ad- 
mits that  Cornelius  had  rejected  his  rebellious  Deacon 
Felicissimus  from  communion,  complains  that  he  had 
been  weakly  shaken,  and  induced  to  waver,  by  the 
false  representations  of  the  partisans  of  Fortunatus.2 
This  transient  difference  was  soon  lost  in  Cyprian's 
generous  admiration  for  the  intrepidity  of  Cornelius, 
in  whose  glorious  Confession  the  whole  Church  of 
Rome,  even  the  fallen,  who  had  been  admitted  as  peni- 
tents, now  nobly  joined.  Cornelius  was  banished,  it 
is  said,  by  the  Emperor  Gallus,  to  Civita  Vecchia  ; 
he  was  followed  by  vast  numbers  of  believers,  who 
shared  his  exile,  and  his  danger.  The  Church  returned 
from  banishment,  but  under  a  new  bishop,  Lucius  ; 
Cornelius  had  died,  the  words  of  Cyprian  hardly  assert 
by  a  violent  death.3  The  Novatians  alone,  during  this 

1  Quod  vero  ad  Novatiani  personam  pertinet,  pater  carissime,  desiderasti 
tibi  scribi  quam  hseresin  introduxisset,  scias  nos  primo  in  loco  non  curiosos 
esse  debere  quid  ille  doceat,  cum  foris  doceat.    Quisquis  ille  est,  et  quails* 
cunque  est,  Christianus  non  est,  qui  in  Christi  ecclesia  non  est.    Ad  Anton. 
Epist.  lii. 

2  Read  the  whole  remarkable  letter,  Iv.  ad  Cornelium  —  the  strongest 
revelation  of  the  views,  reasonings,  passions,  fears,  hatreds  of  Cyprian.    I 
cannot  consent,  with  a  late  writer,  to  the  abandonment  of  all  these  docu- 
ments as  spurious.    Forgery  would  not  have  left  the  argument  so  doubtful, 
9r  rather  so  decisive  against  the  object  imputed  to  the  forgers. 

8  Epist.  ad  Lucium  P.  R.  reversum  ab  exilio  —  Iviii.  See,  however,  Epist. 
Ixviii. — He  is  described  as  martyrio  quoque  dignatione  Domini  honoratus. 
Compare  Routh's  note,  ii.  132. 


86  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

new  trial  of  the  faith,  stood  aloof  in  sullen  hostility. 
4.B.  263.  They  were  too  obscure,  Cyprian  suggests,  to 
provoke  the  jealousy  of  the  rulers.  But  Cyprian  mis- 
calculated that  strength  and  vitality  of  Novatianism. 
It  spread  throughout  Christendom :  even  in  the  East, 
Fabius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  hardly  restrained  from 
joining  the  party.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  treated 
their  advances  with  greater  wisdom ;  he  earnestly 
urged  Novatian,  now  that  Cornelius  was  dead  and  the 
question  laid  almost  at  rest  by  the  cessation  of  perse- 
cution, to  return  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  On 
Novatian's  stubborn  refusal,  he  condemned  in  strong 
terms  his  harsh  Christianity,  as  depriving  the  Saviour 
of  his  sacred  attribute  of  mercy.  But  Novatianism 
endured  for  above  two  centuries  ;  it  had  its  bishops  in 
Constantinople,  Nicea,  Nicomedia,  Citiaeus  in  Phrygia, 
in  Cyzicum  and  Bithynia ;  even  in  Alexandria,  in 
Italy,  in  Gaul,  in  Spain.  It  had  its  saints,  its  hermits, 
its  monks.  St.  Ambrose  in  Italy,  Pacianus,  Bishop 
of  Barcelona,  and  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury Leo  the  Great,  thought  it  necessary  to  condemn 
or  to  refute  the  doctrines  of  Novatian.  The  two 
Byzantine  ecclesiastical  historians,  Socrates  and  his 
follower  Sozomen,  have  been  accused  of  leaning  to 
Novatianism.1 

Novatianism,  like  all  unsuccessful  opposition,  added 
Cyprian's      strength  to  its  triumphant  adversary.     It  was 

unity  of  the  .      l    .  .       .J          .... 

Church.  not  so  much  by  its  rigor,  as  by  its  collision 
with  the  Hierarchical  system,  that  it  lost  its  hold  on  the 
Christian  mind.  It  declared  that  there  were  sins  be- 

1  Compare  Walch  Ketzer-Geschichte.  Walch  has  collected  every  pas- 
sage relating  to  Novatianism  with  his  usual  industry,  accuracy  and  fair- 
ness, ii.  pp.  185,  288. 


CHAP.  I.  CYPRIAN'S  UNITY.  87 

yond  the  aosolving  power  of  the  clergy.  By  setting 
up  rival  bishops  in  Rome,  Carthage,  and  other  cities, 
it  only  evoked  more  commandingly  the  growing  theory 
of  Christian  unity,  and  caused  it  to  be  asserted  in  a 
still  more  rigid  and  exclusive  form.  Within  the  pale 
of  the  Church,  under  the  lawful  Bishop,  were  Christ 
anl  salvation  ;  without  it,  the  realm  of  the  Devil,  the 
wojld  of  perdition.  The  faith  of  the  heretic  and  schis- 
matic was  no  faith,  his  holiness  no  holiness,  his  martyr- 
dom no  martyrdom.1  Latin  Christianity,  in  the  mind 
of  Cyprian,  if  not  its  founder,  its  chief  hierophant,  had 
soared  to  the  ideal  height  of  this  unity.  This  Utopia 
of  Cyprian  placed  St.  Peter  at  the  head  of  the  College 
of  coequal  Apostles,  from  whom  the  Bishops  inherited 
coequal  dignity.  The  succession  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  from  St.  Peter  was  now,  near  200  years  after 
his  death,  an  accredited  tradition.  Nor,  so  long  as 
Carthage  and  Rome  were  in  amity  and  alliance,  did 
Cyprian  scruple  to  admit  (as  Carthage  could  not  but 
own  her  inferiority  to  Imperial  Rome)  a  kind  of  pri- 
macy, of  dignity  at  least,  in  the  Metropolitan  Bishop.2 

1  The  second  Council  of  Carthage  touches  on  this  absolving  power  of  the 
priesthood  —  "Quando  permiserit  ipse,  qui  legem  dedit  ut  ligati  in  terris 
etiam  incoelis  ligati  essent,  solvi  autem  possent  illaquae  hie  prius  inecclesia 
golverentur."     The  decree  of  this  Council  anticipates  another  instant  per- 
secution, and  urges,  with  great  force  and  beauty,  the  necessity  of  strength- 
ening all  disciples  against  the  coming  trial  —  quos  excitamus  et  hortamur 
ad  prcelium  non  inermes  et  nudos  relinquamus,  sed  protectione  corporis  et 
sanguinis  Christi  muniamus.    Mansi,  sub  ann.  252,  or  Routh,  Rel.  Sacrse, 
v.  iii.  p.  70. 

2  Hoc  erant  utique  et  caeteri  Apostoli,  quod  fuit  Petrus,  pari  consortio 
praediti  et  honoris  et  potestatis :  sed  exordium  ab  unitate  proficiscitur,  et 
primatus  Petro  datur,  ut  una  Christi  ecclesia  et  cathedra  una  monstretur. 
De  unit.  Eccles.     There  is  little  doubt  that  this  famous  passage  is  an  inter- 
polation; it  is  not  found  in  the  best  manuscripts.     The  whole  passage  with- 
out these  words  seems  to  me  to  bear  out  the  guarded  assertion  of  the  text 


88  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

The  Punic  league  suddenly  gives  place  to  a  Punic 
Dispute  war.  A  new  controversy  has  sprung  up  in 
Ro^rLd  the  interval  between  the  Decian  and  Vale- 
Cartha*e'  rian  persecutions,  on  the  rebaptism  of  here- 
tics. Africa,  the  East,  Alexandria  with  less  decision, 
declared  the  baptism  by  heretics  an  idle  ceremony,  and 
even  an  impious  mimicry  of  that  holy  rite,  which  could 
only  be  valid  from  the  consecrated  hands  of  the  lawful 
A.D.  255.  clergy.  Lucius  of  Rome  had  ruled  but  a 
few  months:  he  was  succeeded  by  Stephen.  This 
pope  adopted  a  milder  rule.  Every  baptism  in  the 
name  of  Christ  admitted  to  Christian  privileges.  He 
enforced  this  rule,  according  to  his  adversaries  (his 
own  letters  are  lost),  with  imperious  dictation.  At 
length  he  broke  off  communion  with  all  the  churches 
of  the  East  and  of  Africa,  which  adhered  to  the  more 
rigorous  practice.1  But  the  Eastern  hatred  of  heresy 
conspired  with  the  hierarchical  spirit  of  Africa,  which 
could  endure  no  intrusion  on  the  prerogatives  of  the 
clergy.  Cyprian  confronts  Stephen  not  only  as  an 
equal,  but,  strong  in  the  concurrence  of  the  East  and 
of  Alexandria,  as  his  superior.  The  primacy  of  Peter 
has  lost  its  authority.  He  condemns  the  perverseness, 
obstinacy,  contumacy  of  Stephen.  He  promulgates, 
in  Latin,  a  letter  of  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  the  Cappado- 
cian  Caesarea,  still  more  unmeasured  in  its  censures. 
Firmilian  denounces  the  audacity,  the  insolence  of 
Stephen  ;  scoffs  at  his  boasted  descent  from  St.  Peter ; 
declares  that,  by  his  sin,  he  has  excommunicated  him- 
self: he  is  the  schismatic,  the  apostate  from  the  unity 

1  He  denounced  Cyprian,  according  to  Firmilian,  as  a  false  Christ,  a  false 
apostle,  a  deceitful  workman.    Finn.  Epist.  apud  Cyprian.  Opera. 


CHAP.  I.    SEPARATE  UNITY  OF  LATIN  CHRISTENDOM.      89 

of  the  Church.1  A  solemn  Council  of  eighty-seven 
bishops,  assembled  at  Carthage  under  Cyprian,  asserted 
the  independent  judgment  of  the  African  Churches, 
repudiated  the  assumption  of  the  title,  Bishop  of 
Bishops,  or  the  arbitrary  dictation  of  one  bishop  to 
Christendom. 

Yet  even  during  this  internal  feud,  Latin  Chris- 
tendom was  gathering  into  a  separate  unity.  The 
Churches  of  Gaul  and  Spain  appeal  at  once  to  Rome 
and  to  Carthage ;  Aries,  indeed,  in  southern  Gaul, 
may  still  have  been  Greek.  But  the  high  character  of 
Cyprian,  and  the  flourishing  state  of  the  African 
Churches,  combined  with  their  Latinity  to  endow  them 
with  this  concurrent  primacy  in  the  West.  Martia- 
nus,  Bishop  of  Aries,  had  embraced  Novatianism  in  all 
its  rigor.  The  oppressed  anti-No vatian  party  sent  to 
Carthage  as  well  as  to  Rome,  to  entreat  their  aid. 
Cyprian  appears  to  acknowledge  the  superior  right  in 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  appoint  a  substitute  for  the  re- 
bellious Novatianist.  He  urges  Pope  Stephen,  by  the 
memory  of  his  martyred  predecessors  Cornelius  and 
Lucius,  not  to  shrink  from  this  act  of  necessary  rigor.2 
This,  however,  was  but  a  letter  from  one  bishop  to 
another,  from  Cyprian  of  Carthage  to  Stephen  of 
Rome.3  The  answer  to  the  Bishops  of  Spain  is  the 
formal  act  of  a  synod  of  African  Bishops,  assembled 

1  Excidisti  enim  temet  ipsum ;  noli  te  fallere.     Siquidem  ille  est  vere 
Bchismaticus,  qui  se  a  communione  Ecclesiasticse  unitatis  apostatam  fecerit. 
Firm,  ad  Cyprian.    I  see  no  ground  to  question,  with  some  Roman  Catho- 
lic writers,  the  authenticity  of  this  letter.    No  doubt  it  is  a  translation  from 
the  Greek ;  if  by  Cyprian  himself,  it  accounts  for  the  sameness  of  style.    A 
Donatist  forgery  would  have  been  in  a  different  tone,  and  directed  against 
different  persons.     Compare  Walch  Ketzer-Geschichte,  ii.   323,   et  seqq. 
Eouth,  note  ii.  p.  151. 

2  A.D.  256.    Apud  Mansi,  sub  ann.  or  Routh,  Rel.  Sac.  iii.  p.  91. 
8  Cypriani  Epist.  bcvii. 


90  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

under  the  presidency  of  the  Bishop  of  Carthage.  It 
is  a  Latin  religious  state  paper,  addressed  by  one  part 
of  Latin  Christendom  to  the  rest.1  The  Spanish 
Bishops,  Basilides  and  Martian's,  of  Leon  and  Astorga, 
had,  during  the  Decian  persecution,  denied  the  faith, 
offered  sacrifice,  according  to  the  language  of  the  day, 
returned  to  wallow  in  the  mire  of  paganism.  Yet  they 
had  dared  to  resume,  not  merely  their  privileges  as 
Christians,  but  the  holy  office  of  bishops.  Whatever 
leniency  might  be  shown  to  humbler  penitents,  that  the 
immaculate  priesthood  should  not  be  irrevocably  for- 
feited by  such  defilement,  revolted  not  only  the  more 
severe,  but  the  general  sentiment.  Two  other  bishops, 
Felix  and  Sabinus,  were  consecrated  in  their  place. 
Basilides  found  his  way  to  Rome,  and  imposed  by  his 
arts  on  the  unsuspecting  Stephen,  who  commanded  his 
reinstatement  in  his  high  office.  Appeal  was  made  to 
Carthage  against  Rome.  Cyprian  would  strengthen 
his  own  authority  by  that  of  a  synod.  At  the  head  of 
his  thirty-five  bishops,  Cyprian  approves  the  acts  of  the 
Presbyters  and  people  of  Leon  and  Astorga  in  reject- 
ing such  unworthy  bishops  ;  treats  with  a  kind  of  re- 
spectful compassion  the  weakness  of  Stephen  of  Rome, 
who  had  been  so  easily  abused ;  and  exhorts  the  Span- 
iards to  adhere  to  their  rightful  prelates,  Felix  and 
Sabinus.2 

The  persecution  of  Valerian  joined  the  Bishops 
of  Rome  and  of  Carthage,  Sixtus,  the  successor  of 
Stephen,  and  the  famous  Cyprian,  in  the  same  glori- 
ous martyrdom.3 

1  The  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  are  the  earliest  Latin  public 
documents. 

8  Cyprian.  Epist.  Ixvii. 
*  On  the  martyrdom  of  Cyprian,  Hist,  of  Christ  ii.  251. 


CHAP.  I.  MARCELLINUS  AND  MARCELLUS.  91 

Dionysius,  a  Calabrian,  is  again  a  Greek  Bishop  of 
Rome,  mingling  with  something  of  congenial  A.D.  259. 
zeal,  and  in  the  Greek  language,  in  the  controversies 
of  Greek  Alexandria,  and  condemning  the  errors  of 
the  Bishop  of  the  same  name,  who  had  the  evil  report 
of  having  been  the  predecessor  of  Arius  in  doctrine. 
Dionysius,  of  Alexandria,  however,  a  prelate  of  great 
virtue,  it  should  seem,  was  but  incautiously  betrayed 
into  these  doubtful  expressions  ;  at  all  events,  he  repu- 
diated the  conclusions  drawn  from  his  words.  With 
all  the  more  candid  and  charitable,  he  soon  resumed  his 
fame  for  orthodoxy.  When  the  Emperor  Aurelian1 
transferred  the  ecclesiastical  judgment  over  A.D.  270. 
Paul  of  Samosata,  a  rebel  against  the  Empire  as  against 
the  Church,  from  the  Bishops  of  Syria  to  those  of 
Rome  and  Italy,  a  subtle  Greek  heresy,  maintained  by 
Syrian  Greeks,  could  not  have  been  adjudicated  but  by 
Greeks  or  by  Latins  perfect  masters  of  Greek.  Dio- 
nysius, as  Bishop  of  Rome,  passed  sentence  in  this 
important  controversy. 

Towards  the  close  of  this  third  century,  throughout 
the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  darkness  settles    again 
over  the  Bishops  of  Rome.     The  apostacy  of  Marcemmis, 
Marcellinus  is  but  a  late  and  discarded  fable,  A-Dl  296- 
adopted  as   favoring  the   Papal   supremacy.     Legend 
assembles   three  hundred   Bishops  at  Sinuessa,  three 
hundred  Bishops  peaceably  debating  at  such  times  in  a 
small  Neapolitan  town.     This  synod  refused  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  crime  of  St.  Peter's  successor.    Mar- 
cellinus was  forced  to  degrade  himself. 

The  legend,  that  his   successor,  Marcellus,  was  re- 
1  Compare,  on  the  act  of  Aurelianus,  Hist,  of  Christ,  ii.  p.  257. 


92  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

duced  to  the  servile  office  of  a  groom,  rests  on  Man*iin», 
no  better  authority.     Had  it  any  claim  to  A-I>-  ^ 
truth,  the  successors  of  Marcellus  had  full  and  ample 
revenge,  when  kings  and  emperors  submitted  to  the 
same  menial  service,  and  held  the  stirrup  for  the  Popes 
to  mount  their  horses. 


n.  CONVERSION  OF  CONSTANTINE.  93 


CHAPTER  H. 

ROME  AFTER  THE  CONVERSION  OF  CONSTANTINE. 

THUS,  down  to  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  the 
biography  of  the    Roman    Bishops,  and   the  Conversion 

t  •  i.     i         -r,  T-I    •  ofConstan- 

history  or  the  Koman  Episcopate,  are  one  ;  «"«• 
the  acts  and  peculiar  character  of  the  Pontiffs,  the  in- 
fluence and  fortunes  of  the  See,  excepting  in  the  doubt- 
ful and  occasional  gleams  of  light  which  have  brought 
out  Victor,  Zephyrinus,  Callistus,  Cornelius,  Stephen, 
into  more  distinct  personality,  are  involved  in  a  dim 
and  vague  twilight.  On  the  establishment  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  the  religion  if  not  of  the  Empire,  of  the 
Emperor,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  rises  at  once  to  the  rank 
of  a  great  accredited  functionary  ;  the  Bishops  gradu- 
ally, though  still  slowly,  assume  the  life  of  individual 
character.  The  Bishop  is  the  first  Christian  in  the  first 
city  of  the  world,  and  that  city  is  legally  Christian. 
The  Supreme  Pontificate  of  heathenism  might  still 
linger  from  ancient  usage  among  the  numerous  titles 
of  the  Emperor ;  but  so  long  as  Constantine  was  in 
Rome,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  head  of  the  Emperor's 
religion,  became  in  public  estimation  the  equal,  in  au- 
thority and  influence  immeasurably  the  superior,  to  all 
of  sacerdotal  rank.  The  schisms  and  factions  of 
Christianity  now  become  affairs  of  state.  As  long  as 
Rome  is  the  imperial  residence,  an  appeal  to  the  Em- 
peror is  an  appeal  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The 


94  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

Bishop  of  Rome  sits,  by  the  imperial  authority,  at  the 
head  of  a  synod  of  Italian  prelates,  to  judge  the  dis- 
putes with  the  African  Donatists. 

Melchiades  held  the  See  of  Rome  at  the  time  of 
Constantino's  conversion,  but  soon  made 
room  for  Silvester,  whose  name  is  more  in- 
aiveuter.  separably  connected  with  that  great  event. 
Silvester  has  become  a  kind  of  hero  of  religious  fable. 
But  it  was  not  so  much  the  genuine  mythical  spirit 
which  unconsciously  transmutes  history  into  legend ; 
it  was  rather  deliberate  invention,  with  a  specific  aim 
and  design,  which,  in  direct  defiance  of  history,  accel- 
erated the  baptism  of  Constantine,  and  sanctified  a 
porphyry  vessel  as  appropriated  to,  or  connected  with, 
Meichiades,  that  holy  use :  and  at  a  later  period  pro- 

Silvester. 

A.D.  312-814.  duced  the  monstrous  fable  of  the  Donation.1 

Jan.  31. 

1This  document  —  the  Imperial  Edict  of  Donation  —  a  forgery  as  clumsy 
as  audacious,  ought  to  be  inspected  by  those  who  would  judge  of  the  igno- 
rance which  could  impose,  or  the  credulity  which  would  receive  it,  as  the 
title-deed  to  enormous  rights  and  possessions.  (Muratnri  ascribes  the  forg- 
ery of  the  act  to  the  period  between  755  and  760.)  —  Palatium  nostrum 
....  et  urbem  Romam,  et  totius  Italiac,  etoccidcntalium  regionum  provin- 
cias,  loca,  civitates  ....  pnedicto  beatissimo  patri  m^tro  Silvestro  Cathol- 
ico  Papse  tradentes  et  cedentes  hujus  et  successoribus.  ejus  Pmititicatus  po- 
testate  ....  divino  nostro  hoc  pragmatico  dccretoadniinistrari  diffinimus, 
juri  sanctic  Romanorum  ecclesise  subjicienda  et  in  eo  pcrinan*ura  exhibe- 
mus.  The  Donation  may  be  found,  prefixed  to  I.aun-ntius  Valla's  famous 
refutation.  Read,  too,  the  more  guarded  and  reluctant  surrender  of  Nicho- 
las of  Cusa,  the  feeble  murmur  of  defence  from  Antoninus,  archbishop  of 
Florence,  — apud  Brown,  Fasciculus,  pp.  124, 161.  Ik-tore  the  Reformation, 
the  Donation  had  fallen  the  first  victim  of  awakening  religions  inquiry. 
Dante,  while  he  denounces,  does  not  venture  to  question  the  truth  of  Con- 
stantino's gift.  By  the  time  of  Ariosto  it  had  become  the  object  of  unre- 
buked  satire,  even  in  Italy.  Astolpho  finds  it  among  the  chimaeras  of 
earth  in  the  moon, 

"  or  puzza  forte. 

Questo  era  il  don  (re  perd  dir  lice) 

Che  Constantino  al  buon  Silvestro  fore." 

Orl.  Fur.  xxxiv.  80. 


CHAP.  II.  OBSCURITY  OF  ROMAN  BISHOPS.  95 

But  that  with  which  Constantine  actually  did  invest 
the  Church,  the  right  of  holding  landed  Qrant  of  Con. 
property,  and  receiving  it  by  bequest,  was  8ti 
far  more  valuable  to  the  Christian  Hierarchy,  and  not 
least  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  than  a  premature  and 
prodigal  endowment,  which  would  at  once  have  plunged 
them  in  civil  affairs ;  and,  before  they  had  attained 
their  strength,  made  them  objects  of  jealousy  or  of 
rapacity  to  the  temporal  Sovereign.  Had  it  been 
possible,  a  precipitate  seizure,  or  a  hasty  acceptance 
of  large  territorial  possessions  would  have  been  fatal  to 
the  dominion  of  the  Church.  It  was  the  slow  and 
imperceptible  accumulation  of  wealth,  the  unmarked 
ascent  to  power  and  sovereignty,  which  enabled  the 
Papacy  to  endure  for  centuries. 

The  obscurity  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  was  not  in 
this  alone  their  strength.  The  earlier  Pontiffs  (Cle- 
ment is  hardly  an  exception)  were  men,  who  of  them- 
selves commanded  no  great  authority,  and  awoke  no 
jealousy.  Rome  had  no  Origen,  no  Athana-  Roman  Bish- 
sius,  no  Ambrose,  no  Augustine,  no  Jerome.  ops  Ol 
The  power  of  the  Hierarchy  was  established  by  other 
master-minds :  by  the  Carthaginian  Cyprian,  by  the 
Italian  Ambrose,  the  Prelate  of  political  weight  as 
well  as  of  austere  piety,  by  the  eloquent  Chrysostom.1 
The  names  of  none  of  the  Popes,  down  to  Leo  and 
Gregory  the  Great,  appear  among  the  distinguished 
writers  of  Christendom.2  This  more  cautious  and 
retired  dignity  was  no  less  favorable  to  their  earlier 

1  Chrysostom's  book  on  the  Priesthood  throughout. 

2  Early  Christianity,  it  may  be  observed,  cannot  be  justly  estimated  from 
its  writers.     The  Greeks  were  mostly  trained  in  the  schools  of  philosophy 
—  the  Latin  in  the  schools  of  rhetoric;  and  polemic  treatises  could  not  but 
form  a  great  part  of  the  earliest  Christian  literature. 


96  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

power,  than  to  their  later  claim  of  infallibility.  If 
more  stirring  and  ambitious  men,  they  might  have 
betrayed  to  the  civil  power  the  secret  of  their  aspiring 
hopes;  if  they  had  been  voluminous  writers,  in  the 
more  speculative  times,  before  the  Christian  creed  had 
assumed  its  definite  and  coherent  form,  it  might  have 
been  more  difficult  to  assert  their  unimpeachable  ortho- 
doxy. 

The  removal  of  the  seat  of  empire  to  Constanti- 
Fonndatson    nople  consummated  the  separation  of  Greek 

•f  Constan- 
tinople, and  Latin  Christianity;  one  took  the  do- 
minion of  the  East,  the  other  of  the  West.  Greek 
Christianity  has  now  another  centre  in  the  new  capi- 
tal ;  and  the  new  capital  has  entered  into  those  close 
relations  with  the  great  cities  of  the  East,  which  had 
before  belonged  exclusively  to  Rome.  Alexandria  has 
become  the  granary  of  Constantinople  ;  her  Christian- 
ity and  her  commerce,  instead  of  floating  along  the 
Mediterranean  to  Italy,  pours  up  the  .JSgean  to  the 
city  on  the  Bosphorus.  The  Syrian  capitals,  Antioch, 
Jerusalem,  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor  and  Bithynia, 
Ephesus,  Nicea,  Nicomedia,  own  another  mistress. 
The  tide  of  Greek  trade  has  ebbed  away  from  the 
West,  and  found  a  nearer  mart ;  political  and  religious 
ambition  and  adventure  crowd  to  the  new  Eastern 
Court.  That  Court  becomes  the  chosen  scene  of 
Christian  controversy ;  the  Emperor  is  the  proselyte  to 
gain  whom  contending  parties  employ  argument,  in- 
fluence, intrigue. 

That  which  was  begun  by  the  foundation  of  Con- 

WrWonof     stantinople,  was  completed  by  the  partition 

of  the  empire  between  the  sons  of  Constan- 

tine.     There  are  now  two  Roman  worlds,  a  Greek, 


CHAP.  II.        APOSTOLICAL  ANTIQUITY  OF  ROME.  9T 

and  a  Latin.  In  one  respect,  Rome  lost  in  dignity, 
she  was  no  longer  the  sole  Metropolis  of  the  empire ; 
the  East  no  longer  treated  her  with  the  deference  of  a 
subject.  On  the  other  hand,  she  was  the  uncontested, 
unrivalled  head  of  her  own  hemisphere ;  she  had  no 
rival  in  those  provinces,  which  yet  held  her  allegiance, 
either  as  to  civil  or  religious  supremacy.  The  separa- 
tion of  the  empire  was  not  more  complete  between  the 
sons  of  Constantine  or  Theodosius,  than  between 
Greek  and  Latin  Christianity. 

In  Rome  itself  Latin  Christianity  had  long  been  in 
the  ascendant.  Greek  had  slowly  and  im-  I^MH  Chris 

J     .  tianity  that 

perceptibly  withdrawn  from  her  services,  her  of  Rome. 
Scriptures,  her  controversial  writings,  the  spirit  of  her 
Christianity.  It  is  now  in  the  person  of  Athanasius, 
a  stranger  hospitably  welcomed,  not  a  member  at  once 
received  into  her  community.  Great  part  of  the  three 
years,  during  which  Athanasius  resided  in  Rome,  must 
be  devoted  to  learning  Latin,  before  he  can  obtain  his 
full  mastery  over  the  mind  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
perhaps  before  he  can  fully  initiate  the  Romans  in  the 
subtle  distinctions  of  that  great  controversy.1 

The  whole  West,  Africa,  Gaul,  in  which  so  soon  as 
the  religion  spread  beyond  the  Greek  settle-  or  the  west, 
ments,  it  found  Latin,  if  not  the  vernacular,  the 
dominant  language  (the  native  Celtic  had  been  driven 
back  into  obscurity),  Spain,  what  remained  of  Britain, 
formed  a  religious  as  well  as  a  civil  realm.  In  her 
Apostolical  antiquity,  in  the  dignity  therefore  of  her 
Church,  Rome  stood  as  much  alone  and  unapproach- 
able among  the  young  and  undistinguished  cities  of 
the  West,  as  in  her  civil  majesty.  After  Cyprian, 

i  Gibbon,  c.  xxi.  p.  360. 
VOL.  i.  7 


98  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

Carthage,  until  the  days  of  Augustine,  had  sunk  back 
into  her  secondary  rank :  Africa  had  been  long  rent 
to  pieces  by  the  Donatist  schisms.  Rome,  therefore, 
might  gather  up  her  strength  in  quiet,  before  she 
committed  herself  in  strife  with  any  of  her  more  for- 
midable adversaries ;  and  those  adversaries  were  still 
weakening  each  other  in  the  turmoils  of  unending 
controversy ;  so  as  to  leave  the  almost  undivided 
Unity  of  the  West  an  object  of  admiration  and  envy 
to  the  rest  of  Christendom. 

For  throughout  the  religious  and  civil  wars,  which 
Trinitarian  almost  simultaneously  with  the  conversion  of 
controrersy.  constantine  distracted  the  Christian  world, 
the  Bishops  of  Rome  and  the  West  stood  aloof  in 
ummpassioued  equanimity ;  they  were  drawn  into  the 
Trinitarian  controversy,  rather  than  embarked  in  it  by 
their  own  ardent  zeal.  So  long  as  Greek  Christianity 
predominated  in  Rome,  so  long  had  the  Church  been 
divided  by  Greek  doctrinal  controversy.  There  the 
earliest  disputes  about  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  had 
found  ready  audience.  But  Latin  Christianity,  as  it 
grew  to  predominance  in  Rome,  seemed  to  shrink  from 
these  foreign  questions,  or  rather  to  abandon  them  for 
others  more  congenial.  The  Quarto  Deciman  contro- 
versy related  to  the  establishment  of  a  common  law  of 
Christendom,  as  to  the  time  of  keeping  her  great 
Festival.  So  in  Novatianism,  the  readmission  of  apos- 
tates into  the  outward  privileges  of  the  Church,  the 
kindred  dispute  concerning  the  rebaptism  of  heretics, 
were  constitutional  points,  which  related  to  the  eccle- 
siastical polity.  Donatism  turned  on  the  legitimate 
succession  of  the  African  Bishops. 

The  Trinitarian  controversy  was  an  Eastern  ques- 


CHAP.  H.  ORTHODOXY  OF  THE  WEST.  99 

tion.  It  began  in  Alexandria,  invaded  the  Syrian 
cities,  was  ready,  from  its  foundation,  to  disturb  the 
churches,  and  people  the  streets  of  Constantinople 
with  contending  factions.  Until  taken  up  by  the 
fierce  and  busy  heterodoxy  of  Constantius  when  sole 
Emperor,  it  chiefly  agitated  the  East.  The  Asiatic 
Nicea  was  the  seat  of  the  Council ;  all  but  a  very  few 
of  the  three  hundred  and  twenty  Bishops,  who  formed 
the  Council,  were  from  Asiatic  or  Egyptian  sees. 
There  were  two  Presbyters  only  to  represent  the 
Bishop  of  Rome ; 1  the  Bishop  by  his  absence  hap- 
pily escaped  the  dangerous  precedent,  which  might 
have  been  raised  by  his  appearance  in  any  rank 
inferior  to  the  Presidency.  Besides  these  Presbyters, 
there  were  not  above  seven  or  eight  Western  Prelates. 
Hosius  of  Cordova,  if,  as  some  accounts  state,  he 
presided,  did  so  as  the  favorite  of  the  Emperor ;  if 
it  may  be  so  expressed,  as  the  Court  divine.2 

During  the  second  period  of  the  Trinitarian  contro- 
versy, when  the  Arian  Emperor  of  the  East,  2nd  period. 
Constantius,  had  made  it  a  question  which  involved 
the  whole  world  in  strife ;  and,  though  it  was  not  the 
cause  of  the  fratricidal  war  between  the  sons  of  Con- 
stantine,  yet  no  doubt  it  aggravated  the  hostility ; 
Rome  alone,  except  for  a  short  time  of  compulsory 

1  TT/C   (5e  ys  BacrtAevotJOT/f  TO/teuf  6  /jh>  Ttpoiarug  did,  yripag  vctTsper 
irpea3vT£poi  6s  avrov  Trapovrec  rrfv  avrov  rd^iv  inTJrjpuaav.    The  expres- 
sion "the  royal  city  "  is  significant.    Socrat.  H.  E.,  i.  8.    The  presbyters' 
names  are  reported,  Vitus  and  Vincentius. 

2  Hosius  is  named  by  writers  of  the  fifth  century  as  the  first  among  the 
bishops  at  Nicea  to  sign  the  decrees.    (Gelas.  Cyzicen.  Act.  Concil.  sub 
ann.   325.)      Theodore!  assigns  a  kind  of  presidency  to  Eustathius  ot 
Antioch.    In  all  the  earlier  accounts  it  is  impossible  to  discern  any  presi- 
dent, certainly  none  when  the  emperor  is  present.    Hosius,  in  later  times, 
was  taken  up  as  the  representative  of  the  Bishop  of  Koine.    Compare 
Shroeck.  C.  K.  v.  p.  335. 


100  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

submission,  remained  faithful  to  the  cause  of  Athana- 
sius. The  great  Athanasius  himself,  a  second  time  an 
exile  from  the  East,1  the  object  of  the  Eastern  Emper- 
or's inveterate  animosity,  had  found  a  hospitable  recep- 
tion at  Rome.  There,  having  acquired  the  knowledge 
of  Latin,  he  laid  the  spells  of  his  master-mind  on  the 
Pope  Julius,  and  received  the  deferential  homage  of 
Latin  Christianity,  which  accepted  the  creed,  which  its 
narrow  and  barren  vocabulary  could  hardly  express  in 
adequate  terms.  Yet  throughout,  the  adhesion  of 
Rome  and  of  the  West  was  a  passive  acquiescence 
in  the  dogmatic  system,  which  had  been  wrought  out 
by  the  profounder  theology  of  the  Eastern  divines, 
rather  than  a  vigorous  and  original  examination  on  her 
part  of  those  mysteries.  The  Latin  Church  was  the 
scholar,  as  well  as  the  loyal  partisan  of  Athanasius. 
New  and  unexpected  power  grew  out  of  this  firmness 
in  the  head  of  Latin  Christianity,  when  so  large  a  part 
of  Eastern  Christendom  had  fallen  away  into  what 
was  deemed  apostacy.  The  orthodoxy  of  the  W.-t 
stood  out  in  bold  relief  at  the  Council  of  Sardica.2 

i  On  his  first  exile  he  had  been  received  by  the  Emperor  Constans  at 
Treves. 

*  Even  those  Latin  writers  (for  Latin  Christianity  could  not  altogether 
be  silent  on  the  controversy)  who  treated  on  the  Trinity,  rather  set  forth 
or  explained  to  their  flocks  the  orthodox  doctrines  determined  in  the  East, 
than  refuted  native  heresies,  or  proposed  their  own  irrefragable  judgment. 
Nor  were  the  more  important  treatises  written  in  the  capital,  or  in  the  less 
barbarized  Latin  of  Rome,  but  by  Hilary,  the  Gallic  bishop  of  Poitiers,  in 
the  rude  and  harsh  Roman  dialect  of  that  province;  and  Hilary  had  been 
banished  to  the  East,  where  he  had  become  impregnated  with  the  spirit,  to 
his  praise  be  it  said,  by  no  means  with  the  acrimony  of  the  strife.  At  the 
close  of  the  controversy  a  Latin  creed  embodied  the  doctrines  of  Athana- 
sius and  of  the  anti-Nestorian  writers;  but  even  thi«  was  not  so  much  a 
work  of  controversy,  as  a  final  summary  of  Latin  Christianity,  as  to  the 
ultimate  result  of  the  whole.  It  is  the  creed  commonly  called  that  of  St 


CHAP.  II.  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA.  101 

At  this  Council,  held  under  the  protection,  and 
within  the  realm  of  the  orthodox  Constans,  the  oc- 
cupation of  all  the  greater  sees  in  the  East  by  Arian 
or  semi-Arian  prelates,  the  secession  of  the  Eastern 
minority  from  the  Council,  left  Latin  Christianity,  as  it 
were,  the  representative  of  Christendom.  It  assumed 
to  itself  the  dignity  and  authority  of  a  General  A.D.  347. 
Council,  and  it  might  seem  that  the  suffrage  of  that 
Council  awed  the  reluctant  Constantius,  and  enforced 
the  restoration  of  Athanasius  to  his  see.  By  some 
happy  fortune,  by  some  policy  prescient  of  future 
advantage,  it  might  be  unwillingness  to  risk  his  dignity 
at  so  great  a  distance  from  his  own  city,  the  trouble  or 
expense  of  long  journeys,  or  more  important  avocations 
at  home,  or  the  uncertainty  that  he  would  be  allowed 
the  place  of  honor,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  (Julius  I.) 
was  absent  from  Sardica  as  from  Nicea.  Councilof 
Hosius  of  Cordova  again  presided  in  that  Sardica- 
assembly.  Three  Italian  bishops  appended  their  sig- 
natures after  that  of  Hosius,  as  representing  the 
Roman  Pontiff.  Unconsciously  the  representatives 
of  these  times  prepared  the  way  for  the  Legates 
of  future  ages.  Western  Christendom  might  seem 
disposed  to  show  its  gratitude  to  Rome  for  its  pure 
and  consistent  orthodoxy,  by  acknowledging  at  Sar- 
dica a  certain  right  of  appeal  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
from  Illyricum  and  Macedonia.  These  provinces 
were  still  part  of  the  empire  of  the  West,  and  the 
decree  might  seem  as  if  the  Primacy  of  Rome  was 
to  be  coextensive  with  the  Western  Empire.  The 
metropolitan  power  of  Latin  Christianity  thus  gath- 
ered two  large  provinces,  mostly  Greek  in  race  and 
in  language,  under  its  jurisdiction.  The  bishops  of 


i',2  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

Illyricum  and  Macedonia,  in  seeking  a  temporary 
protector  (no  doubt  their  immediate  object)  from  the 
lawless  tyranny  of  their  Eastern  and  heterodox  su- 
periors, foresaw  not  that  they  were  imposing  on  them- 
selves a  master  who  would  never  relax  his  claim  to 
their  implicit  obedience. 

Liberius,  the  successor  of  Julius  I.,  had  to  endure 
popeLibe-      the  fiercer  period  of  conflict  with  the  Arian 

rius.    A.D.        —.>...  , 

852,  May  22.    .bniperor.     Lonstantius  was  now  sole  i: 

of  the  Roman  world.     From  the  councils  of  Aries  and 

councilor      of  Milan   had  been   extorted  by  bribes,   by 

Arlea. 

A.D.  3oo.  threats,  and  by  force,  the  condemnation  of 
Council  of  Athanasius.  Liberius  had  commenced  his 
A.D  355.  pontificate  with  an  act  of  declared  hostility 
to  Athanasius.  He  had  summoned  the  Prelate  of 
Alexandria  to  Rome :  he  had  declared  him  cut  off 
from  the  communion  of  the  West.1  But  if,  from  fear 
of  Constantius,  he  had  rejected  Athanasius,  he  soon 
threw  off  his  timidity :  he  as  suddenly  changed  his 
policy  as  his  opinions.  He  disclaimed  his  feeble  Leg- 
ate, the  Bishop  of  Capua,  who  in  his  name  had 
subscribed  at  Aries  the  sentence  against  the  great 
Trinitarian.  Himself,  at  length,  after  suffering  men- 
ace, persecution,  exile,  was  reduced  so  far  to  com- 
promise his  principles  as  to  assent  to  that  condem- 
nation. Yet  nothing  could  show  more  strongly  the 
different  place  now  occupied  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
in  the  estimation  of  Rome  and  of  the  world.  Libe- 
rius is  no  martyr,  calmly  hiving  down  his  life  for 
Christianity,  inflexibly  refusing  to  sacrifice  on  an 
heathen  altar.  He  is  a  prelate,  rejecting  the  sum- 
mary commands  of  an  heretical  sovereign,  treating 

1  Liberii  Epistol.  apud  Hilar.  Fragm.  v. 


CHAP.  H.  PONTIFICATE  OF  LIBERIUS.  103 

his  messages,  his  blandishments,  his  presents,  with 
lofty  disdain.  The  Arian  Emperor  of  the  world 
discerns  the  importance  of  attaching  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  his  party,  in  his  mortal  strife  with  Athana- 
sius.  His  chief  minister,  the  Eunuch  Eusebius,  ap- 
pears ii  Rome  to  negotiate  the  alliance,  bears  with  him 
rich  presents,  and  a  letter  from  the  Emperor.1  Libe- 
rius  coldly  answers  that  the  Church  of  Rome  A.D.  356. 
having  solemnly  declared  Athanasius  guiltless,  he 
could  not  condemn  him.  Nothing  less  than  a  Coun- 
cil of  the  Church,  from  which  the  Emperor,  his  offi- 
cers, and  all  the  Arian  prelates  shall  be  excluded,  can 
reverse  the  decree.  Eusebius  threatens,  but  in  vain ; 
he  lays  down  the  Emperor's  gifts  in  the  Church  of 
St.  Peter.  Liberius  orders  the  infected  offerings  to  be 

o 

cast  out  of  the  sanctuary.  He  proceeds  to  utter  a 
solemn  anathema  against  ah1  Arian  heretics.  Thus 
Roman  liberty  has  found  a  new  champion.  The  Bish- 
op stands  on  what  he  holds  to  be  the  law  of  the 
Church ;  he  is  faithful  to  the  Prelate,  whose  creed 
has  been  recognized  as  exclusive  Christian  truth  by  the 
Senate  of  Christendom.  He  disfranchises  all,  even 
the  Emperor  himself,  from  the  privileges  of  the  Chris- 
tian polity.  Constantius,  in  his  wrath,  orders  the  seiz- 
ure cf  his  rebellious  subject ;  but  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
is  no  longer  at  the  head  of  a  feeble  community  ;  he  is 
respected,  beloved  by  the  whole  city.  All  Rome  is  in 
commotion  in  defence  of  the  Christian  prelate.  The 
city  must  be  surrounded,  and  even  then  it  is  thought 
more  prudent  to  apprehend  Liberius  by  night,  and 
to  convey  him  secretly  out  of  the  city.  He  is  sent 

1  Athanas.  Hist.  Arian.  ad  Monach.  p.  764,  et  seqq.    Theodoret,  H.  E. 
U.  c.  15, 16.     Sozomen,  iv.  c.  11.    Ammian.  Marcell.  xv.  c.  7. 


104  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK.  I 

ub«riuB»t  to  tne  Emperor  at  Milan.  He  appears  be- 
fore Constantius,  with  the  aged  Hosius  of 
Cordova,  and  all  the  more  distinguished  orthodox 
prelates  of  the  west,  Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  Lucifer  of 
Cagliari,  Hilary  of  Poitiers.  He  maintains  the  .-ame 
lofty  tone.  Constantius  declares  that  Athanasius  has 
been  condemned  by  a  Council  of  the  Church  ;  he 
insists  on  the  treason  of  Athanasius  in  corresponding 
with  the  enemies  of  the  Emperor.  Liberius  is  un- 
shaken: "If  he  were  the  only  friend  of  Athanasiu.s, 
he  would  adhere  to  the  righteous  cause."  The  Bishop 
of  Rome  is  banished  to  cold  and  inhospitable  Thrace. 
He  scornfully  rejects  offers  of  money,  made  by  the 
Emperor  for  his  expenses  on  the  way.  "  Let  him 
keep  it  to  pay  his  soldiers."  To  the  eunuch  who 
made  the  like  offer,  he  spoke  with  more  bitter  sarcasm. 
"  Do  you,  who  have  wasted  all  the  churches  of  the 
world,  presume  to  offer  me  alms  as  a  criminal  ? 
Away,  first  become  a  Christian  !  "  l 

Two  years  of  exile  in  that  barbarous  region,   the 
-   dread  of  worse  than  exile,  perhaps  disastrous 

. 

.  357.  news  from  Rome,  at  length  broke  the  spirit 
of  Liberius  ;  he  consented  to  sign  the  semi-Arian 
creed  of  Sirmium,  and  to  renounce  the  communion 
of  Athanasius.2 

For  the  Emperor  had  attempted  to  strike  a  still 
Felix  heavier  blow  against  the  rebellious  exile.  A 

Antipope.  rival  bishop,  as  though  the  See  were  vacant, 
had  usurped  the  throne.  Felix  was  elected,  it  was 

1  Athanas.  Apolog.  Contra  Arian.  p.  205.  Ad  Monach.  p.  368.  Theod- 
oret,  ii.  c.  16,  17. 

8  The  jealousy  of  Felix,  according  to  Baronius  (sub  ann.  357),  was  the 
Dalila  which  robbed  the  Episcopal  Samson  (Liberius)  of  his  strength  and 
fortitude. 


no*. 


CHAP.  II.  THE  ANTIPOPE  FELIX.  105 

said,  by  three  eunuchs,  who  presumed  to  represent  the 
people  of  Rome,  and  consecrated  by  three  courtly 
prelates,  two  of  them  from  the  East.  But  the  clergy 
of  Rome,  and  the  people  with  still  more  determinate 
resolution,  kept  aloof  from  the  empty  churches,  where 
Bishop  Felix,  if  not  himself  an  Arian,  did  not  scruple 
to  communicate  with  Arians.1  The  estrangement 
continued  through  the  two  years  of  the  exile  of  Libe- 
rius  ;  the  Pastor  was  without  a  flock.  At  the  close 
of  this  period,  the  Emperor  Constantius  A.D.  357. 
visited  Rome ;  the  females,  those  especially  of  the 
upper  rank,  (history  now  speaks  as  if  the  whole 
higher  orders  were  Christians,)  had  most  strenuously 
maintained  the  right  of  Liberius,  and  refused  all 
allegiance  to  the  intrusive  Felix.  They  endeavored 
to  persuade  the  Senators,  Consulars,  and  Patricians, 
to  make  a  representation  to  the  Emperor ;  the  timid 
nobles  devolved  the  dangerous  office  on  their  wives. 
The  female  deputation,  in  their  richest  attire,  as  be- 
fitting their  rank,  marched  along  the  admiring  streets, 
and  stood  before  the  Imperial  presence ;  by  their  fear- 

1  Theodoret  (H.  E.  ii.  16)  and  Sozomen  (H.  E.  iv.  15)  plainly  assert  that 
Felix  adhered  to  the  creed  of  Nicea.  Socrates  (H.  E.  ii.  37)  condemns  him 
as  infected  by  the  Arian  heresy.  By  Athanasius  (ad  Monach.,  p.  861)  he 
is  called  a  monster,  raised  by  the  malice  of  Antichrist,  worthy  of.  and  fit  to 
execute,  the  worst  design  of  his  wicked  partisans.  This  prelate  of  ques- 
tionable faith,  this  usurper  of  the  Roman  See,  has  stolen,  it  is  difficult  to 
conjecture  how,  into  the  Roman  Martyrology.  It  seems  clear  that  he  re- 
tired from  Rome,  and  died  a  few  years  after  in  peace.  Gregory  the  Thir- 
teenth, when  searching  investigations  into  ecclesiastical  history  became 
necessary,  startled  by  the  perplexing  difficulty  perhaps  of  a  canonized 
Arian,  certainly  of  an  antipope,  with  the  honors  of  a  martyr,  ordered  a 
regular  inquiry  into  the  claims  of  Felix.  (Baron.  Ann.  sub  ann.  357.) 
The  case  looked  desperate  for  the  memory  of  Felix:  he  was  in  danger 
of  degradation,  when,  by  a  seasonable  miracle,  his  body  was  discovered 
With  an  ancient  inscription,  "  Pope  and  Martyr."  Baronius  wrote  a  book 
ibout  it,  which  was  never  published. 


106  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

less  pertinacity  they  obtained  a  promise  for  the  release 
of  Liberius.  Even  then  Constantius  was  but  imper- 
fectly informed  concerning  the  strength  of  the  factions 
which  himself  having  exasperated  to  the  utmost,  he 
now  vainly  attempted  to  reconcile.  His  Edict  de- 
clared that  the  two  Bishops  should  rule  with  conjoint 
authority,  each  over  his  respective  community.  Such 
an  edict  of  toleration  was  premature  by  nearly  four- 
teen centuries  or  more.  In  that  place,  the  uncongenial 
atmosphere  of  which  we  should  hardly  have  expected 
Christian  passions  to  have  penetrated,  the  Circus  of 
Rome,  the  Edict  was  publicly  read.  "  What !  "  ex- 
claimed the  scoffing  spectators,  "  because  we  have  two 
factions  here,  distinguished  by  their  colors,  are  we  to 
have  two  factions  in  the  Church  ? "  The  whole 
audience  broke  forth  in  an  overwhelming  shout,  "  One 
God !  one  Christ !  one  Bishop !  " 

Liberius  returned,  in  the  course  of  the  next  year,  to 
uberins  in     Rome.     His  entrance  was  an   ovation  ;  the 

RrvmA 

A.D.  858,  people  thronged  forth,  as  of  old  to  meet  some 
triumphant  Consul  or  Cicero  on  his  return 
from  exile.  The  rival  bishop,  Felix,  fled  before  his 
face ; l  but  Felix  and  his  party  would  not  altogether 
abandon  the  coequal  dignity  assigned  him  by  the  de- 
cree of  Constantius,  and  confirmed  by  the  Council  of 
Sirmium.  He  returned ;  and,  at  the  head  of  a  body 
of  faithful  ecclesiastics,  celebrated  divine  worship  in 
the  basilica  of  Julius,  beyond  the  Tiber.  He  was  ex- 
pelled, patricians  and  populace  uniting  against  this,  one 
of  the  earliest  Antipopes  who  resisted  armed  force.8 

1  Hieron.  Chron.  Marc,  et  Faust  p.  4. 

*  This  curious  passage  in  the  Pontifical  Annals  (apud  Muratori  iii.  sub 
an.)  is  evidently  from  the  party  of  Felix;  —  it  asserts  his  Catholicity. 


CHAP.  H.  THE  ANTIPOPE  FELIX.  107 

A  tradition  has  survived  in  the  Pontifical  Annals,  of  a 
proscription,  a  massacre.1  The  streets,  the  baths,  the 
churches  ran  with  blood,  —  the  streets,  where  the  par- 
tisans of  rival  bishops  encountered  in  arms  ;  the  baths, 
where  Arian  and  Catholic  could  not  wash  together 
without  mutual  contamination ;  the  churches,  where 
they  could  not  join  in  common  worship  to  the  same 
Redeemer.  Felix  himself  escaped,  and  lived  some 
years  in  peace,  on  an  estate  near  the  road  to  Portus.2 
Liberius,  Rome  itself,  sinks  back  into  obscurity ;  the 
Pope  mingled  not,  as  far  as  is  known,  in  the  fray, 
which  had  now  involved  the  West  as  well  as  the  East, 
Latin  as  well  as  Greek  Christianity ;  he  was  absent 
from  the  fatal  Council  of  Rimini,3  which  de-  A.D.  359. 
luded  the  world  into  unsuspected  Arianism.4 

The  Emperor  Julian,  during  his  short  and  eventful 
reign,  might  seem  to  have  forgotten  that  there  *•»•  361-363. 
was  such  a  city  as  Rome.     Paris,  Athens,  Constanti- 
nople, Antioch,  Jerusalem,  perhaps  Alexandria,  might 
seem  to  be  the  only  Imperial  cities  worthy  of  Jt,Uan 
his  regard.     It  was  a  Greek  religion  which  ^P*10*- 
he  aspired  to  restore  ;  his  philosophy  was  Greek  ;  his 
writings  Greek  ;  he  taught,  ruled,  worshipped,  perished 
in  the   East.6     Under  his   successors   (after   Jovian), 
Valentinian,   and  Valens,  while   Valens   af-  vaientiman. 

Sept.  23  or 

flicted  the  East  by  his  feeble  and  frantic  zeal  24, 366. 

1  Gibbon  (who  for  once  does  not  quote  his  special  authority,  neverthe- 
less accepts  it),  c.  xxi.  v.  iii.  p.  385.  It  is  rejected  by  Bower  (v.  i.  p.  141) 
and  by  Walch,  "  Lives  of  Popes,"  in  loc. 

*  He  died  the  year  before  Liberius,  365. 

*  Hist,  of  Christ,  iii.  p.  46. 

*  Liberius  had  already  subscribed,  during  his  banishment,  the  creed  of 
Sirmium.    Constantius  and  his  semi-Arian  or  Arian  counsellors  may  have 
been  content  with  that  act  of  submission,  which  had  not  been  formally  re- 
roked. 

6  On  Julian,  Hist,  of  Christ,  vol.  iii.  c.  vi. 


108  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

for  Arianism,  Valentinian  maintained  the  repose  of  the 
West  by  his  rigid  and  impartial  toleration.1 

On  the  death  of  Liberius,  the  factions,  which  had 
smouldered  in  secret,  broke  out  again  with  fatal  fury. 
The  Pontificate  of  Damasus  displays  Christianity  now 
strife  on  the  not  merely  the  dominant,  it  might  almost  seem 

death°f  IT-  T» 

Liberiua.  the  sole  religion  of  Rome  ;  and  the  Roman 
character  is  working  as  visibly  into  Christianity.  The 
election  to  the  Christian  bishopric  arrays  the  people  in 
adverse  factions  ;  the  government  is  appalled  ;  churches 
become  citadels,  are  obstinately  defended,  furiously 
stormed  ;  they  are  defiled  with  blood.  Men  fall  in 
murderous  warfare  before  the  altar  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace.  In  one  sense  it  might  seem  the  reanimation 
of  Rome  to  new  life ;  ancient  Rome  is  resuming  her 
wonted  but  long-lost  liberties.  The  iron  hand  of  des- 
potism, from  the  time  of  the  last  Triumvirate,  or  rather 
from  the  accession  of  Augustus  to  the  Empire,  had 
compressed  the  unruly  populace,  which  only  occasion- 
ally dared  to  break  out,  on  a  change  in  the  Imperial 
dynasty,  to  oppose,  or  be  the  victims  of,  the  Prastorian 
soldiery.  Now,  however,  the  Roman  populace  appears 
quickened  by  a  new  principle  of  freedom  ;  of  freedom, 
if  with  some  of  its  bold  independence,  with  all  its  blind 
partisanship,  its  headstrong  and  stubborn  ferocity.  The 
great  offices,  which  still  perpetuated  in  name  the  an- 
cient Republic,  the  Senatorship,  Qusestorship,  Consul- 
ate, are  quietly  transmitted  according  to  the  Imperial 
mandates,  excite  no  popular  commotion,  nor  even  in- 
terest ;  for  they  are  honorary  titles,  which  confer 
neither  influence,  nor  authority,  nor  wealth.  Even 
the  Prefecture  of  the  city  is  accepted  at  the  will  of  the 

1  Compare  Hist  of  Christ,  iii.  p.  111. 


CHAP.  H.    CONTESTS  FOR  THE  BISHOPRIC  OF  ROME.       109 

Emperor,  who  rarely  condescends  to  visit  Rome.  But 
the  election  to  the  bishopric  is  now  not  merely  an  affair 
of  importance  —  the  affair  of  paramount  importance  it 
might  seem  —  in  Rome  ;  it  is  an  event  in  the  annals 
of  the  world.  The  heathen  historian,1  on  whose  notice 
had  already  been  forced  the  Athanasian  controversy, 
Athanasius  himself,  and  the  acts  and  the  exile  of  Libe- 
rius,  assigns  the  same  place  to  the  contested  promotion 
of  Damasus  which  Livy  might  to  that  of  one  of  the 
great  consuls,  tribunes,  or  dictators.  He  interprets,  as 
well  as  relates,  the  event :  2  —  "  No  wonder  that  for  so 
magnificent  a  prize  as  the  Bishopric  of  Rome,  men 
should  contest  with  the  utmost  eagerness  and  obstinacy. 
To  be  enriched  by  the  lavish  donations  of  the  princi- 
pal females  of  the  city  ;  to  ride,  splendidly  attired,  in 
a  stately  chariot ;  to  sit  at  a  profuse,  luxuriant,  more 
than  imperial,  table  —  these  are  the  rewards  of  success- 
ful ambition."3  The  honest  historian  contrasts  this 
pomp  and  luxury  with  the  abstemiousness,  the  humility, 
the  exemplary  gentleness  of  the  provincial  prelates. 
Ammianus,  ignorant  or  regardless  as  to  the  legitimacy 
of  either  election,  arraigns  both  Damasus  and  his  rival 
Ursicinus4  as  equally  guilty  authors  of  the  tumult. 

1 1  assume,  without  hesitation,  the  heathenism  of  Ammianus,  though, 
•with  regard  to  him,  as  to  other  writers  of  the  time,  there  is  as  much  truth 
as  sagacity  in  the  observation  of  Heyne — Est  obvia  res  in  lectione  scripto- 
rum  istius  temporis,  prudentiorum  plerosque  nee  patrias  religiones  uhjecisse, 
nee  novas  damnasse,  sed  in  his  quoque  pro  suorum  ingeniormn  facultate 
probanda  probasse.  Heynii  Prolus.  in  Wagner's  edit.  p.  cxxxv. 

2  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  xxvii.  3,  sub  ann.  367. 

8  Compare  —  it  is  amusing  and  instructive  —  the  Cardinal  Baronius  writ- 
ing in  the  splendid  Papal  court,  and  the  severe  Jansenist  Tillemont,  on  this 
passage. 

*  On  the  side  of  Ursicinus  (Ursinus)  is  the  remarkable  document  pub- 
lished by  Sirmond  (Opera,  i.  p.  127),  the  petition  of  Marcellinus  and  Faus- 
tinas to  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  who,  in  his  answer,  though  they  were 


110  LATIN  CHKISTIAXITT.  BOCK  I 

Of  the  Christian  writers  (and  there  are,  singularly 
enough,  contemporary  "witnesses,  probably  eye-witness- 
es, on  each  side),  the  one  asserts  the  priority  and 
legality  of  election  in  favor  of  Damasus,  the  other  of 
Ursicinus ;  the  one  aggravates,  the  other  extenuates 
the  violence  and  slaughter.  But  that  scenes  occurred 
of  frightful  atrocity  is  beyond  all  doubt.  So  long  and 
obstinate  was  the  conflict,  that  Juventius,  the  Praefect 
of  the  city,  finding  his  authority  contemned,  his  forces 

afterwards  Luciferians  (an  unpopular  sect),  testifies  to  their  character  by  his 
gracious  promises  of  protection.  According  to  the  Preface  ( is  it  quite  cer- 
tain that  the  Preface  is  of  the  same  date?)  to  this  Libellus  1'recum,  Dama- 
BUS  was  supported  by  the  party  of  Felix ;  he  was  the  successor  of  Felix,  the 
reputed  Arian,  Ursicinus  of  Liberins.*  The  Presbyter?,  Deacons,  and 
faithful  people,  who  had  adhered  to  Liberins  in  his  exile,  met  in  the  Julian 
Basilica,  and  duly  elected  Ursicinus ;  who  was  consecrated  by  Paul,  bishop 
of  Tibur.  Damasus  was  proclaimed  by  the  followers  of  Felix,  in  S.  M. 
Lucina.  Damasus  collected  a  mob  of  charioteers  and  a  wild  rabble,  broke 
into  the  Julian  Basilica,  and  committed  great  slaughter.  Seven  days  after, 
having  bribed  a  great  body  of  ecclesiastics  and  the  populace,  and  seized  the 
Lateran  Church,  he  was  elected  and  consecrated  bi?h<>p.  Ur>icinus  was  ex- 
pelled from  Rome.  Damasus,  however,  continued  his  acts  of  violence. 
Seven  Presbyters  of  the  other  party  were  hurried  prisoners  to  the  Lateran: 
their  faction  rose,  rescued  them,  and  carried  them  to  the  Basilica  of  Liberius 
(S.  Maria  Maggiore).  Damasus,  at  the  head  of  a  gang  of  gladiators,  char- 
ioteers, and  laborers,  with  axes,  swords,  and  clubs,  stormed  the  church:  a 
hundred  and  sixty  of  both  sexes  were  barbarously  killed;  not  one  on  the 
side  of  Damasus.  The  party  of  Ursicinus  were  obliged  to  withdraw,  vainly 
petitioning  for  a  synod  of  bishops  to  examine  into  the  validity  of  the  two 
elections.  Ursicinus  returned  from  exile  more  than  once,  but  Damasns  had 
the  ladies  of  Rome  in  his  favor;  and  the  council  of  Valontinian  was  not 
inaccessible  to  bribes.  New  scenes  of  blood  took  place.  Ursicinus  was 
compelled  at  length  to  give  up  the  contest 

On  the  other  hand  Damasus  had  on  his  side  the  great  vindicator — suc- 
cess. Rufinu?,  and  Jerome  (then  at  Rome,  afterward*  the  secretary  of  Da- 
masus) assert,  with  the  same  minuteness  and  particularity,  the  priority  and 
the  lawfulness  of  his  election:  they  treat  Ursicinus  as  a  schismatic:  but 
they  cannot  deny,  however  they  mav  mitigate,  the  acts  of  violence  and 
bloodshed. 

•  Damaan*,  from  other  authority,  b  said  to  harp  sworn  a*  Pmbvter  to  own  no 
bishop  bat  Liberia*,  to  hare  accompanied  him  in  exile,  but  speedily  deserted  >>**", 
returned  to  Rome,  and  at  last  submitted  to  Felix. 


CHAP.  H.  DAilASUS  ASV  URSICINUS.  Ill 

unequal  to  keep  the  peace,  retired  into  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Rome.  Churches  were  garrisoned,  churches 
besieged,  churches  stormed  and  deluged  with  blood. 
In  one  day,  relates  Ammianus,  above  one  hundred  and 
thirty  dead  bodies  were  counted  in  the  basilica  of  Sisin- 
nius.  The  triumph  of  Damasus  cannot  relieve  his 
memory  from  the  sanction,  the  excitement  of,  hardly 
from  active  participation  in,  these  deeds  of  blood.1 
Nor  did  the  contention  cease  with  the  first  discomfiture 
and  banishment  of  Ursicinus  :  he  was  more  than  once 
recalled,  exiled,  again  set  up  as  rival  bishop,  and  re- 
exiled.  Another  frightful  massacre  took  place  in  the 
church  of  St.  Agnes.  The  Emperor  was  forced  to 
have  recourse  to  the  character  and  firmness  of  the  fa- 
mous heathen  Praetextatus,  as  successor  to  Juventius 
in  the  government  of  Rome,  in  order  to  put  down  with 
impartial  severity  these  disastrous  tumults.  Some  years 
elapsed  before  Damasus  was  in  undisputed  possession 
of  his  see. 

The  strife  between  Damasus  and  Ursicinus  was  a 
prolongation  or  rival  of  that  between  Liberius  Damans 
and  Felix,  and  so  may  have  remotely  grown  Pope 
out  of  the  doctrinal  conflict  of  Arianisrn  and  Trinita- 
rianism.2     No  doubt  too  it  was  a  conflict  of  personal 
ambition,  for  the  high  prize  of  the  Roman  Episcopate. 
But   there    was   another  powerful  element  of  discord 
among  the  Christians  of  Rome.    The  heathen  historian 

1  Baronius  ingeniously  discovered  a  certain  Maximus,  a  man  of  notorious 
cruelty,  who  afterwards  held  a  high  office,  and  might,  perhaps,  have  been 
accessory  to  the  late  scenes  of  tumult ;  and  so  quietly  exculpates  Damasus, 
by  laying  all  the  carnage  upon  Maximus,  who  was  not  in  authority,  possi- 
bly not  in  Rome  at  the  commencement  of  the  strife. 

2  Jerome,  Epist.  xv.  t.  i.  p.  39,  asserts  the  orthodoxy  of  Damasus,  the 
Arianisvn  of  Ursicinus :  but  Jerome  is  hardly  conclusive  authority  against 
the  enemy  of  Damasus. 


112  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

saw  and  described  the  outward  aspect  of  things,  the 
tumults  which  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  city,  the  con- 
flagrations, the  massacres,  the  assaulted  and  defended 
churches,  the  two  masses  of  believers  striving  in  arms 
for  the  mastery.  So  too  he  saw  the  more  notorious 
habits,  the  public  demeanor  of  the  bishops  and  of  the 
clergy,  then*  pomp,  wealth,  ceremony.  The  letters  of 
Jerome,  while  they  confirm  the  statements  of  Ammia- 
nus,  reveal  the  internal  state,  the  more  secret  workings, 
in  this  new  condition  of  society.  Athanasius  had  not 
merely  brought  with  him  into  the  West  the  more  spec- 
ulative controversies  which  distracted  Greek  Christian- 
ity, he  had  also  introduced  the  principles  and  spirit  of 
Monasticism  Eastern  Monasticism :  and  this  too  had  been 
in  Rome.  embraced  with  all  the  strength  and  intensity 
of  the  Roman  character.  That  which  during  the 
whole  of  the  Roman  history  had  given  a  majesty,  a 
commanding  grandeur  to  the  virtues  and  to  the  vices 
of  the  Romans,  to  their  patrician  pride  and  plebeian 
liberty,  to  their  frugality  and  rapacity,  to  their  courage, 
discipline,  and  respect  for  order ;  to  their  prodigality, 
luxury,  sensuality ;  to  their  despotism  and  their  ser- 
vility ;  now  seemed  to  survive  in  the  force  and  devo- 
tion with  which  they  threw  themselves  into  Christian- 
ity, and  into  Christianity  in  its  most  extreme,  if  it  may 
be  so  said,  excessive  form.  On  the  one  hand  the 
Bishop  and  the  clergy  are  already  aspiring  to  a  sacer- 
dotal power  and  preeminence  hardly  attained,  hardly 
aimed  at,  in  any  other  part  of  Christendom  ;  the  Pon- 
tiff cannot  rest  below  a  magnificence  which  would 

O 

contrast  as  strongly  with  the  life  of  the  primitive 
Bishop,  as  that  of  Lucullus  with  that  of  Fabricius. 
The  prodigality  of  the  offerings  to  the  Church  and  to 


CHAP.  II.  LAW  AGAINST  HEREDIPETY.  113 

the  clergy,  those  more  especially  by  bequest,  is  so  im- 
moderate, that  a  law l  is  necessary  to  restrain  Law  ^n^ 
the  profuseness  on  one  hand,  the  avidity  on  Hered:Pety 
the  other,  a  law  which  the  statesman  Ambrose 2  and 
the  Monk  Jerome  approve,  as  demanded  by  the  abuses 
of  the  times.  "  Priests  of  idols,  mimes,  charioteers, 
harlots  may  receive  bequests ;  it  is  interdicted,  and 
wisely  interdicted,  only  to  ecclesiastics  and  monks." 
The  Church  may  already  seem  to  have  taken  the  place 
of  the  emperor  as  universal  legatee.  As  men  before 
bought  by  this  posthumous  adulation  the  favor  of 
Caesar,  so  would  they  now  that  of  God.  Heredipety, 
or  legacy  hunting,  is  inveighed  against,  in  the  clergy 
especially,  as  by  the  older  Satirists.  Jerome  in  his 
epistles  is  the  Juvenal  of  his  times,  without  his  gross- 
ness  indeed,  for  Christianity  no  doubt  had  greatly 
raised  the  standard  of  morals.  The  heathen,  as  repre- 
sented by  such  men  as  Praetextatus  (they  now  seem  to 
have  retired  into  a  separate  community,  and  stood  in 
relation  to  the  general  society,  as  the  Christians  had 
stood  to  the  heathen  under  Vespasian  or  the  Anto- 
nines),  had  partaken  in  the  moral  advancement.  But 
with  this  great  exception,  this  repulsive  license,  Jerome, 
both  in  the  vehemence  of  his  denunciations,  and  in 
his  description  of  the  vices,  manners,  habits  of  Rome, 
might  seem  to  be  writing  of  pre-Christian  times.3 

1  The  law  of  Valentinian  (A.D.  370),  addressed  to  Damasus,  bishop  of 
Rome,  and  ordered  to  be  read  in  all  the  churches  of  the  city.    Cod. 
Theodos.  xiv.  2,  20. 

2  Ambros.  Epist.  xxii.  1.  5,  p.  200.    Hieronym.  Epist.  ii.  p.  13.    Solifl 
clericis  et  monachis  hac  lege  prohibetur,  et  prohibetur  non  a  persecutoribus, 
sed  a  principibus  Christianis.    Nee  de  lege  conqueror,  sect  doleo  cur  meru- 
erimus  hanc  legem.    Hieronym.  ad  Nepotian. 

8  Prudentius,  with  poetic  anachronism,  throws  back  the  jealousy  of  the 
heathens  of  the  enormous  wealth  offered  on  the  altars  of  the  Christians,  and 


114  LATIN  CHBISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

But  the  Roman  character  did  not  interwork  into  the 
general  Christianity  alone,  it  embraced  monastic  Chris- 
tianity, in  all  its  extremest  rigor,  its  sternest  asceticism, 
with  the  same  ardor  and  energy.  Christian  Stoicism 
could  not  but  find  its  Catos ;  but  it  was  principally 
among  the  females  that  the  recoil  seemed  to  take  place 
from  the  utter  shamelessness,  the  unspeakable  profli- 
gacy of  the  Imperial  times,  to  a  severity  of  chastity,  to 
a  fanatic  appreciation  of  virginity  as  an  angelic  state, 
as  a  kind  of  religious  aristocratical  distinction,  far 
above  the  regular  virtues  of  the  wife  or  the  matron. 
Pope  Damasus,  though  by  no  means  indifferent  to  the 
splendor  of  his  office,  was  the  patron,  as  his  secretary 
Jerome  was  the  preacher,  of  this  powerful  party ;  and 
between  this  party  and  the  priesthood  of  Rome  there 
was  already  that  hostility  which  has  so  constantly  pre- 
vailed between  the  Regulars,  the  observants  of  monas- 
tic rule,  and  what  were  called  in  later  times  the  secular 
clergy.  The  Monastics  inveighed  against  the  worldly 
riches,  pomp,  and  luxury  of  the  clergy ;  the  clergy 
looked  with  undisguised  jealousy  on  the  growing,  irre- 
sistible influence  of  the  monks,  especially  over  the 
high-born  females.1  Jerome  hated,  and  was  hated 

the  alienation  of  estates  from  their  right  heirs,  into  the  third  century.  The 
Prefect  of  Rome  reproaches  the  Deacon  Laurentins,  before  his  martyrdom 
(about  258),  with  the  silver  cups  and  golden  candlesticks  of  the  service :  — 

"  Turn  gamma  cura  eft  fratribos  —  Ut  sertno  testator  loqoax, 
Oflerre,  fundis  renditia  —  Sestertiorum  millia. 
Addict*  arorum  praedia  —  Foedia  sub  auctionibtu, 
Successor  exhspres  gemlt  —  Sanctis  egeng  parentibus. 
HKC  occuluntur  abditis  —  Ecclesiarum  in  anpnlis, 
Et  gamma  pietas  creditor  —  If  adare  dulces  liberos." 

Perittepk.  Hymn  11. 

Compare  Paolo  Sarpi  delle  Materie  Beneficiarie,  c.  vi.  v.  iv.  p.  74. 

*  Jerome  spared  neither  the  clergy  nor  the  monks.  On  the  clergy,  iee 
the  passage  (ad  Eustochium):  Sunt  alii,  de  hominibus  loquor,  mei  ordinia, 


CHAP.  II.    CONTEST  BETWEEN  MONKS  AND  CLERGY.       115 

with  the  most  cordial  reciprocity.  The  austere  Jerome 
was  accused,  unjustly  no  doubt,  of  more  than  spiritual 
intimacy  with  his  distinguished  converts ;  his  enemies 
brought  a  charge  of  adultery  against  Pope  Damasus 
himself.1 

Nor  was  this  a  question  merely  between  the  superior 
clergy  and  a  man  in  the  high  and  invidious  position  of 
Jerome,  renowned  for  his  boundless  learning,  and  hold- 
ing the  eminent  office  of  secretary  under  Pope  Dama- 
sus. It  was  a  dispute  which  agitated  the  people  of 
Rome.  Among  the  female  proselytes  who  crowded  to 
the  teaching  of  Jerome,  and  became  his  most  fervent 
votaries,  were  some  of  the  most  illustrious  matrons, 
widows,  and  virgins.  Marcella  had  already,  when 
Athanasius  was  at  Rome,  become  enamoured  of  the 
hard  and  recluse  life  of  the  female  Egyptian  anchor- 
ites. But  she  was  for  some  time  alone.  The  satiric 
Romans  laughed  to  scorn  this  new  and  superstitious 
Christianity.  A  layman,  Helvidius,  wrote  a  book 
against  it,  a  book  of  some  popularity,  which  Jerome 
answered  with  his  usual  controversial  fury  and  con- 

qui  ideo  presbyteratum  et  diaconatum  ambiunt  ut  mulieres  licentius  vide- 
antur.  Then  follows  the  description  of  a  clerical  coxcomb.  His  whole 
care  is  in  his  dress,  that  it  be  well  perfumed;  that  his  feet  may  not  slip 
about  in  a  loose  sandal ;  his  hair  is  crisped  with  a  curling-pin ;  his  fingers 
glitter  with  rings ;  he  walks  on  tiptoe  lest  he  should  splash  himself  with  the 
wet  soil;  when  you  see  him,  you  would  think  him  a  bridegroom  rather 
than  an  ecclesiastic.  Jerome  enjis  the  passage.  Et  isti  sunt  sacerdotes 
Baal.  Then  on  the  monks  (ad  Nepot.):  Nonnulli  sunt  ditiores  monachi, 
quam  fuerant  saeculares  et  clerici,  qui  possident  opes  sub  Christo  paupere, 
quas  sub  locuplete  et  fallaci  Diabolo  non  habuerant,  et  seqq.  Compare, 
throughout,  the  account  of  Jerome,  in  the  Hist,  of  Christianity,  vol.  iii.  p. 
i23,  et  seqq. 

1  Quern  in  tantum  matrons  diligebant,  ut  matronarum  auriscalpius  di- 
ceretur.  So  says  the  preface  to  the  hostile  petition,  the  Libellus  Precum. 
Apud  Sirmond.  i.  p.  136.  The  charge  of  adultery  is  in  Anastasius  Vit 
Pamasi. 


116  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

temptuousness.  Marcella  was  a  widow  of  one  of  the 
oldest  patrician  houses,  connected  with  all  the  consular 
families  and  with  the  prefect  of  the  city.  She  was 
extremely  rich.  She  became  the  most  ardent  of 
Jerome's  hearers ;  her  example  spread  with  irresistible 
contagion.  The  sister  of  Marcella,  Paula,  with  her 
two  daughters,  Blesilla  and  Eustochium,1  threw  them- 
selves passionately  into  the  same  devotion.  Paula, 
like  her  sister,  was  very  wealthy ;  she  possessed  great 
part  of  Nicopolis,  the  city  founded  by  Augustus  to 
commemorate  the  battle  of  Actium.  Blesilla,  her 
younger  daughter,  was  a  widow  at  the  age  of  twenty. 
She  rejected  the  importunate  persuasions  of  her  friends 
to  contaminate  herself  with  a  second  marriage.  She 
abandoned  herself  entirely  to  the  spiritual  direction  of 
Jerome ;  her  tender  frame  sank  under  the  cruel  pen- 
ances and  macerations  which  he  enjoined.  The  death  of 
the  young  and  beautiful  widow  was  attributed  to  these 
austerities.  All  Rome  took  an  indignant  interest  in 
her  fate ;  her  mother,  for  her  unnatural  weakness, 
became  an  object  of  general  reprobation,  and  the 
public  voice  loudly  denounced  Jerome  as  guilty  of  her 
death.  A  tumult  broke  out  at  the  funeral ;  there  was 
a  loud  cry,  —  "Why  do  we  tolerate  these  accursed 
monks  ?  Away  with  them,  stone  them,  cast  them 
into  the  Tiber!" 

The  pontificate  of  Damasus,  with  those  of  his  two 
immediate  successors,  Siricius  and  Anastasius,  is  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  Latin  Christianity,  distinguished 

1  Among  the  other  names  of  Jerome's  female  admirers,  one  sounds  He- 
brew,—  Lea;  some  Greek, — Eustochium,  Melanium;  besides  these  are 
Principia,  Felicitas,  Feliciana,  Marcellina,  Asella.  On  Asella  and  the  whole 
subject,  see  Hist  of  Christianity,  iii.  p.  328,  et  seqq.  Compare  also  a  later 
work  Gfrorer,  Kirchen-Geschichte,  ii.  p.  631,  et  seqq. 


CHAP.  II.  EXTENSION  OF  MONACHISM.  117 

by  the  commencement  of  three  great  changes :  —  I. 
The  progress  towards  sovereignty,  at  least  over  the 
Western  Church :  the  steps  thus  made  in  advance  will 
find  their  place  in  the  general  view  of  the  Papal  power 
on  the  accession  of  Innocent  I.  II.  The  rapidly  in- 
creasing power  of  monasticism.  III.  The  promulga- 
tion of  a  Latin  version  of  the  Scriptures,  which  be- 
came the  religious  code  of  the  West,  was  received  as 
of  equal  authority  with  the  original  Greek  or  Hebrew, 
and  thus  made  the  Western  independent  of  the  Eastern 
churches,  superseded  the  original  Scriptures  for  centu- 
ries in  the  greatest  part  of  Christendom,  operated  pow- 
erfully on  the  growth  of  Latin  Christian  literature, 
contributed  to  establish  Latin  as  the  language  of  the 
Church,  and  still  tends  to  maintain  the  unity  with 
Eome  of  all  nations  whose  languages  have  been  chiefly 
formed  from  the  Latin. 

Of  both  these  events,  the  extension  of  monasticism, 
and  the  promulgation  of  the  Vulgate  Bible,  Jerome 
was  the  author  ;  of  the  former  principally,  of  the  latter 
exclusively.  This  was  his  great  and  indefeasible  title 
to  the  appellation  of  a  Father  of  the  Latin  Church. 
Whatever  it  may  owe  to  the  older  and  fragmentary 
versions  of  the  sacred  writings,  Jerome's  Bible  is  a 
wonderful  work,  still  more  as  achieved  by  one  man, 
and  that  a  Western  Christian,  even  with  all  the  advan- 
tage of  study  and  of  residence  in  the  East.  It  almost 
created  a  new  language.  The  inflexible  Latin  became 
pliant  and  expansive,  naturalizing  foreign  Eastern  im- 
agery, Eastern  modes  of  expression  and  of  thought, 
and  Eastern  religious  notions,  most  uncongenial  to  its 
own  genius  and  character  ;  and  yet  retaining  much  of 
ts  own  peculiar  strength,  solidity,  and  majesty.  If  the 


118  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

Northern,  the  Teutonic  languages,  coalesce  with  greater 
facility  with  the  Orientalism  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  the 
triumph  of  Jerome  to  have  brought  the  more  dissonant 
Latin  into  harmony  with  the  Eastern  tongues.  The 
Vulgate  was  even  more,  perhaps,  than  the  Papal  power 
the  foundation  of  Latin  Christianity. 

Jerome  cherished  the  secret  hope,  if  it  was  not  the 
avowed  object  of  his  ambition,  to  succeed  Damasus  as 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  He  was  designated,  he  says, 
almost  by  unanimous  consent  for  that  dignity.1  Is  the 
rejection  of  an  aspirant  so  singularly  unfit  for  the  sta- 
tion, from  his  violent  passions,  his  insolent  treatment 
of  his  adversaries,  his  utter  want  of  self-command,  his 
almost  unrivalled  faculty  of  awakening  hatred,  to  be 
attributed  to  the  sagacious  and  intuitive  wisdom  of 
Rome?  Or,  as  is  far  more  probable,  did  the  vanity 
of  Jerome  mistake  outward  respect  for  general  attach- 
ment, awe  of  his  abilities  and  learning  for  admiration, 
and  so  blind  him  to  the  ill-dissembled,  if  dissembled, 
hostility  which  he  had  provoked  in  so  many  quarters  ? 
It  is  difficult  to  refrain  from  speculating  on  his  eleva- 
tion. How  signally  dangerous  would  it  have  been  to 
have  loaded  the  rising  Papacy  with  the  responsibility 
of  all,  or  even  a  large  part  of  the  voluminous  works 
of  Jerome  I  The  station  of  a  Father  of  the  Church, 
one  of  the  four  great  Latin  Fathers,  committed  Chris- 
tendom to  a  less  close  adhesion  to  all  his  opinions,  while 
at  the  same  tune  it  placed  him  above  jealous  and  hos- 
tile scrutiny.  It  was  not  till  two  centuries  later,  when 
speculative  subjects  had  ceased  to  agitate  the  Christian 
mind,  and  the  creed  and  the  discipline  had  settled  down 

1  Omnium  psene  judicio,  dignus  summo  sacerdotio  decernebatur.  Epiat 
xlv.  ad  Asellam,  3. 


CHAP.  II.  THE  FIRST  DECRETAL.  119 

to  a  mature  and  established  form,  that  a  Father  of  the 
Church,  a  voluminous  writer,  could  safely  appear  on 
the  episcopal  throne  of  Rome.  Gregory  the  Great 
was  at  once  the  representative  and  the  voice  of  the 
Christianity  of  his  age.  Nor  could  the  great  work  of 
Jerome  have  been  achieved  at  Rome,  assuredly  not  by 
a  Pope.  It  was  in  his  cell  at  Bethlehem,  meditating 
and  completing  the  Vulgate,  that  Jerome  fixed  for 
centuries  the  dominion  of  Latin  Christianity  over  the 
mind  of  man.  Siricius  was  the  successor  of  p  Siriclug 
Damasus.1  Jerome  left  ungrateful  Rome,  A-D-  38*-398- 
against  whose  sins  the  recluse  of  Palestine  becomes 
even  more  impassioned,  whose  clergy  and  people  be- 
come blacker  and  more  inexcusable  in  his  harsher  and 
more  unsparing  denunciations. 

The  pontificate  of  Siricius  is  memorable  for  the  first 
authentic  Decretal,  the  first  letter  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  which  became  a  law  to  the  Western  Church, 
and  the  foundation  of  the  vast  system  of  ecclesiastical 
jurisprudence.  It  betrays  the  Roman  tendency  to 
harden  into  inflexible  statute  that  which  was  left  before 
to  usage,  opinion,  or  feeling.  The  East  enacted  creeds, 
the  West  discipline. 

The  Decree  of  Siricius  was  addressed  to  Himerius, 
Bishop  of  Tarragona.2  Himerius  had  writ-  The  Decretal, 
ten  before  the  death  of  Damasus  to  consult  A'D' 385' 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  on  certain  doubtful  points  of 
usage,  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism,  the  treatment 
of  apostates,  of  religious  persons  guilty  of  incontinence, 
Jhe  steps  which  the  clergy  were  to  pass  through  to  the 
higher  ranks,  and  the  great  question  of  all,  the  celi- 

1  Damasus  died  Dec.  11. 

2  Apud  Mansi,  sub  ann.  385,  or  Constant.  Epist.  Pontificum. 


120  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  L 

bacy  of  the  clergy.  The  answer  of  Siricius  is  in  the 
tone  of  one  who  supposes  that  the  usages  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  were  to  be  received  as  those  of  Chris- 
tendom. It  was  to  be  communicated  beyond  the  prov- 
ince of  Tarragona,  throughout  Spain,  in  Carthagena, 
Baetica,  Lusitania,  Galicia :  it  appears,  by  an  allusion 
in  a  writing  of  Pope  Innocent  I.,  even  in  Southern 
Gaul.  The  all-important  article  was  on  the  marriage 
of  the  clergy  ;  this  was  peremptorily  interdicted,  as  by 
an  immutable  ordinance,  to  all  priests  and  deacons. 
This  law,  while  it  implied  the  ascendancy  of  monastic 
opinions,  showed  likewise  that  there  was  a  large  part 
of  the  clergy  who  could  only  be  controlled  into  celibacy 
by  law.  Even  now  the  law  was  forced  to  make  some 
temporary  concessions.  Those  who  confessed  that  it 
was  a  fault,  and  could  plead  ignorance  that  celibacy 
was  an  established  usage  of  the  Church,  were  exempted 
from  penalties,  but  could  not  hope  for  promotion  to  a 
higher  rank. 

This  unrepealed  law  was  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  Latin  Christianity.  Her  first  voice  of  authority 
celibacy  of  might  seem  to  utter  the  stern  prohibition, 
the  ciergy.  This,  more  than  any  other  measure,  sepa- 
rated the  sacerdotal  order  from  the  rest  of  society,  from 
the  common  human  sympathies,  interests,  affections. 
It  justified  them  to  themselves  in  assuming  a  dignity 
superior  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  seemed  their  title 
to  enforce  acknowledgment  and  reverence  for  that 
superior  dignity.  The  monastic  principle  admitting, 
virtually  at  least,  almost  to  its  full  extent,  the  Mani- 
chean  tenet  of  the  innate  sinfulness  of  all  sexual  inter- 
course as  partaking  of  the  inextinguishable  impurity 
of  Matter,  was  gradually  wrought  into  the  general 


CHAP.   II.  CELIBACY  OF  THE  CLERGY.  121 

feeling.  Whether  marriage  was  treated  as  in  itself  an 
evil,  perhaps  to  be  tolerated,  but  still  degrading  to 
human  nature,  as  by  Jerome1  and  the  more  ascetic 
teachers  ;  or  honored,  as  by  Augustine,  with  a  specious 
adulation,  only  to  exalt  virginity  to  a  still  loftier  height 
above  it ; 2  the  clergy  were  taught  to  assert  it  at  once 
as  a  privilege,  as  a  distinction,  as  the  consummation 
and  the  testimony  to  the  sacredness  of  their  order. 
As  there  was  this  perpetual  appeal  to  their  pride  (they 
were  thus  visibly  set  apart  from  the  vulgar,  the  rest  of 
mankind),3  so  they  were  compelled  to  its  observance 
at  once  by  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  by  the  fear  of 
falling  below  their  perpetual  rivals,  the  monks,  in  the 
general  estimation.  The  argument  of  their  greater 
usefulness  to  Christian  society,  of  their  more  entire 
devotion  to  the  duties  of  their  holy  function  by  being 
released  from  the  cares  and  duties  of  domestic  life : 
the  noble  Apostolic  motive,  that  they  ought  to  be 
bound  to  the  world  by  few,  and  those  the  most  fragile 
ties,  in  order  more  fearlessly  to  incur  danger,  or  to  sac- 
rifice even  life  more  readily  in  the  cause  of  the  Cross ; 
such  low  incentives  were  disdained  as  beneath  consid- 
eration. Some  hardy  opponents,  Helvidius,  Jovinian, 
Vigilantius,  and  others  of  more  obscure  name,  endeav- 
ored to  stem  the  mingling  tide  of  authority  and  popu- 
lar sentiment ;  they  were  swept  away  by  its  resistless 

1  On  Jerome's  views  see  quotations  Hist,  of  Christianity,  iii.  320,  et  seqq. 

2  Gaudium  virginum  Christi  —  de  Christo,  in  Christo,  cum  Christo,  post 
Christum,  per  Christum,  propter  Christum.     Sequantur  itaque  agnum  qui 
virginitatem  corporis  amiserunt,  non  quocunque  ille  ierit,  sed  quousque  ipsi 
potuerint.    De  Sanct.  Virgin,  cap.  27.  —  The  virgin  and  her  mother  may 
Voth  be  in  heaven,  but  one  a  bright,  the  other  a  dim  star.    Serm.  354,  ad 
Continent. 

8  Quid  interesset  inter  populum  et  sacerdotem,  si  iisdem  ad  stringerentur 
legibus.    Ambros.  Epist.  bdii.  ad  Eccl.  Vercell. 


122  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I. 

force.1  They  boldly  called  in  question  the  first  princi- 
ples of  the  new  Christian  theory,  and  in  the  name  of 
reason,  nature,  and  the  New  Testament,  denied  this 
inherent  perfection  of  virginity,  as  compared  with  law- 
ful marriage.  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  lifted  up 
at  once  their  voices  against  these  unexpected  and  mis- 
timed adversaries.  Jerome  went  so  far  in  his  dispar- 
agement of  marriage,  as  to  be  disclaimed  by  his  own 
ardent  admirers:  but  still  his  adversaries  have  been 
handed  down  to  posterity  under  the  ill-omened  name 
of  heretics,  solely,  or  almost  solely  on  this  account. 
They  live,  in  his  vituperative  pages,  objects  of  scorn 
more  than  of  hatred.  So  unpopular  was  their  resist- 
ance to  the  spirit  of  the  age.  The  general  feeling 
shuddered  at  their  refusal  to  admit  that  which  had 
now  become  one  of  the  leading  articles  of  Lathi 
Christian  faith.  Yet,  notwithstanding  this,  the  law 
of  the  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy,  even  though  imposed 
with  such  overweening  authority,  was  not  received 
without  some  open  and  more  tacit  resistance.  There 
were  few,  perhaps,  courageous  or  far-sighted  enough 
to  oppose  the  principle  itself,  though  even  among 
bishops  Jovinian  was  not  without  followers.  Others, 
incautiously  admitting  the  principle,  struggled  to 
escape  from  its  consequences.  In  some  regions  the 
married  clergy  formed  the  majority,  and,  always  sup- 
porting married  bishops  by  their  suffrages  and  influ- 
ence, kept  up  a  formidable  succession.  Still  Chris- 
tendom was  against  them ;  and  in  most  cases,  those 
who  were  conscientiously  opposed  to  these  austere  re- 
strictions, had  recourse  to  evasions  or  secret  violations 

1 1  have  entered  somewhat  more  at  length  into  this  controversy  in  the 
Hist,  of  Christianity. 


CHAP.  H.  EXTINCTION  OF  PAGANISM.  123 

of  the  law,  infinitely  more  dangerous  to  public  morals. 
Throughout  the  whole  period,  from  Pope  Siricius  to 
the  Reformation,  as  must  appear  in  the  course  of  our 
history,  the  law  was  defied,  infringed,  eluded.  It 
never  obtained  anything  approaching  to  general  ob- 
servance, though  its  violation  was  at  times  more  open, 
at  times  more  clandestine. 

The  Pontificates  of  Damasus  and  Siricius  beheld 
almost  the  last  open  struggles  of  expiring  Roman  pagan- 
ism, the  dispute  concerning  the  Statue  of  Extinction  of 
Victory  in  the  Senate,  the  secession  of  a  large  Pa£anism- 
number  of  the  more  distinguished  senators,  the  plead- 
ings of  the  eloquent  Symmachus  for  the  toleration  of 
the  religion  of  ancient  Rome.  To  such  humiliation 
were  reduced  the  deities  of  the  Capitol,  the  gods,  who, 
as  was  supposed,  had  achieved  the  conquest  of  the 
world,  and  laid  it  at  the  feet  of  Rome.  But  in  this 
great  contest  the  Bishop  of  Rome  filled  only  an  inferior 
part ;  it  was  Ambrose,  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  who  en- 
forced the  final  sentence  of  condemnation  against  pa- 
ganism, asserted  the  sin,  in  a  Christian  Emperor,  of 
assuming  any  Imperial  title  connected  with  pagan  wor- 
ship, and  of  permitting  any  portion  of  the  public  reve- 
nue to  be  expended  on  the  rites  of  idolatry.  It  was 
Ambrose  who  forbade  the  last  marks  of  respect  to  the 
tutelar  divinities  of  Rome  in  the  public  ceremonies. 

Latin  Christianity,  in  truth,  in  all  but  its  monarchi- 
cal strength,  in  its  unity  under  one  Head,  and  under  one 
code  of  ecclesiastical  law,  enacted  and  executed  in  its  last 
resort  by  that  Head,  was  established  in  its  dominion  over 
the  human  mind  without  the  walls  of  Rome.  It  was 
Jerome  who  sent  forth  the  Vulgate  from  his  retreat 
in  Palestine  ;  it  was  Ambrose  of  Milan  who  raised  the 
sacerdotal  power  to  more  than  independence,  limited 


124  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I 

the  universal  homage  paid  to  the  Imperial  authority, 
protected  youthful  and  feeble  Emperors,  and  in  the 
name  of  justice  and  of  humanity  rebuked  the  greatest 
sovereign  of  the  age.  It  was  Augustine,  Bishop  of 
the  African  Hippo,  who  organized  Lathi  theology ; 
wrought  Christianity  into  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men 
by  his  impassioned  autobiography  ;  and  finally,  under 
the  name  of  the  "  City  of  God,"  established  that  new 
and  undefined  kingdom,  at  the  head  of  which  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  hereafter  to  place  himself  as  Sov- 
ereign ;  that  vast  polity,  which  was  to  rise  out  of  the 
ruins  of  ancient  and  pagan  Rome ;  if  not  to  succeed 
at  once  to  the  temporal  supremacy,  to  superinduce  a 
higher  government,  that  of  God  himself.  This  divine 
government  was  sure  eventually  to  fall  to  those  who 
were  already  aspiring  to  be  the  earthly  representatives 
of  God.  The  Theocracy  of  Augustine,  comprehending 
both  worlds,  Heaven  as  well  as  earth,  was  far.  more 
sublime,  as  more  indefinite,  than  the  spiritual  monarchy 
of  the  later  Popes.  It  established,  it  contemplated  no 
such  external  or  visible  autocracy,  but  it  prepared  the 
way  for  it  in  the  minds  of  men  ;  the  spiritual  City  of 
God  became  a  secular  monarchy  ruling  by  spiritual 
means. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  close  the  fourth  century  of 
Christianity,  which  ended  in  the  uneventful  pontificate 
AnMtariua  i.  of  Anastasius  I.  Four  hundred  years  had  now 
elapsed  since  the  birth  of  the  Redeemer.  The  gospel 
was  the  established  religion  of  both  parts  of  the  Roman 
Empire ;  Greek  and  Latin  Christianity  divided  the 
Roman  world.  Most  of  the  barbarians,  who  had  set- 
tled within  the  frontiers  of  the  Empire,  had  submitted 
to  her  religion.  With  Christianity  the  hierarchical  sys- 
tem had  embraced  the  world. 


BOOK  II. 


^-         ^.  4-  4- 
LO        00  GO— 1 

'ill! 

e  o  °"  S  • 


os 


us, 
red. 


2 

hi 


iosco 
depos 


I    ! 


g  s 


ft*    e 


s  ?? 


II 

.) 


a  o  2 

0  «S  > 


«.  i 


- 


126  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  U. 


BOOK  IL 
CHAPTER  I. 

INNOCENT  I. 

THE  fifth  century  of  Christianity  has  begun,  and 
now  arises  a  line  of  Roman  prelates,  some  of  them 
from  their  personal  character,  as  well  as  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  time,  admirably  qualified  to  advance 
the  supremacy  of  the  See  of  Rome,  at  least  over  West- 
ern Christendom. 

Christianity,  in  its  Latin  form,  which  for  centuries 
was  to  be  its  most  powerful,  enduring,  prolific  develop- 
ment, wanted,  for  her  stability  and  unity  of  influence, 
a  capital  and  a  centre  ;  and  Rome  might  seem  deserted 
by  her  emperors  for  the  express  purpose  of  allowing  the 
spiritual  monarchy  to  grow  up  without  any  dangerous 
collision  against  the  civil  government.  The  emperors 
had  long  withdrawn  from  Rome  as  the  royal  residence. 
Of  those  who  bore  the  title,  one  ruled  in  Constanti- 
nople, and,  more  and  more  absorbed  in  the  cares  and 
Romeeentre  calamities  of  the  Eastern  sovereignty,  became 
of  the  west,  gradually  estranged  from  tin-  affairs  of  the 
West.  Nor  was  it  till  the  time  of  Justinian  that  any 
attempt  was  made  to  revive  his  imperial  pretensions  to 
Rome.  The  Western  Emperor  lingered  for  a  time  in 
inglorious  obscurity  among  the  marshes  of  Ravenna, 


CHAP.  I.  ROME  CENTRE  OF  THE  WEST.  127 

till  at  length  the  faint  shadow  of  monarchy  melted 
away,  and  a  barbarian  assumed  the  power  and  the  ap- 
pellation of  Sovereign  of  Italy.  Still,  of  the  barba- 
rian kings,  not  one  ventured  to  fix  himself  in  the  an- 
cient capital,  or  to  inhabit  the  mouldering  palaces  of 
the  older  Caesars.  Nor  could  Ravenna,  Milan,  or 
Pavia,  though  the  seats  of  monarchs,  obscure  the  great- 
ness of  Rome  in  general  reverence  :  they  were  still 
provincial  cities  ;  nor  could  they  divert  the  tide  of 
commerce,  of  concourse,  of  legal,  if  not  of  administra- 
tive business,  which,  however  more  irregular  and  inter- 
mitting, still  flowed  towards  Rome.  The  internal  gov- 
ernment of  the  city  retained  something  of  the  old 
republican  form  which  had  been  permitted  to  subsist 
under  the  despotism  of  the  emperors.  Above  the  con- 
suls or  Senate,  the  shadows  of  former  magistracies,  the 
supreme  authority  was  vested  in  a  delegate,  or  repre- 
sentative of  the  Emperor,  the  prefect,  or  governor ; 
but,  with  the  empire,  that  authority  became  more  and 
more  powerless.  The  aristocracy,  as  we  shall  erelong 
see,  were  scattered  abroad  after  the  capture  of  the  city 
by  Alaric,  and  were  never  after  reorganized  into  a 
powerful  party.  Some  centuries  elapsed  before  that 
feudal  oligarchy  grew  up,  which,  at  a  later  period, 
were  such  dangerous  enemies  to  the  Papacy,  degrading 
it  to  the  compulsory  appointment  of  turbulent  or  un- 
moral prelates,  or  by  the  personal  insult,  and  even  the 
murder,  of  popes.  During  the  following  period,  there- 
fore, the  Bishop  of  Rome,  respected  by  the  barbarians, 
even  by  the  fiercest  pagans,  none  of  whom  were  quite 
without  awe  of  the  high  priesthood  of  the  Roman  relig- 
ion, and,  by  that  respect,  commended  still  more  strongly 
to  the  reverence  of  all  Latin  Christians  ;  alone  hallowed, 


128  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

as  it  were,  ana  permitted  to  maintain  his  serene  dignity 
amid  scenes  of  violence,  confusion,  and  bloodshed ; 
grew  rapidly  up  to  be  the  most  important  person  in  the 
city;  if  not  in  form  the  supreme  magistrate,  yet  dom- 
inant in  influence  and  admitted  authority,  the  all-vene- 
rated Head  of  the  Church  ;  and  where  the  civil  power 
thus  lay  prostrate,  assuming,  without  awakening  jealousy 
and  for  the  public  advantage,  many  of  its  functions, 
and  maintaining  some  show  of  order  and  of  rule. 

It  was  not  solely  as  a  Christian  bishop,  and  bishop 
of  that  city,  which  was  still,  according  to  the  prevail- 
ing feeling,  the  capital  of  the  world,  but  as  the  suc- 
guccessionto  cessor  of  St.  Peter,  of  him  who  was  now 
st.  Peter.  acknowledged  to  be  the  head  of  the  apos- 
tolic body,  that  the  Roman  pontiff  commanded  the 
veneration  of  Rome  and  of  Christendom.  The  pri- 
macy of  St.  Peter,  and  the  primacy  of  Rome,  had  been 
long  reacting  upon  each  other  in  the  minds  of  men, 
and  took  root  in  the  general  sentiment.  The  Church 
of  Rome  would  own  no  founder  less  than  the  chief 
Apostle ;  and  the  distance  between  St.  Peter  and  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles,  even  St.  Paul  himself,  was  in- 
creased by  his  being  acknowledged  as  the  spiritual 
ancestor  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  fifth  century,  the  lineal  descent  of  the 
Pope  from  St.  Peter  was  an  accredited  tenet  of  Chris- 
tianity. As  yet  his  pretensions  to  supremacy  were 
vague  and  unformed;  but  when  authority  is  in  the 
ascendant,  it  is  the  stronger  for  being  indefinite.  It 
is  almost  a  certain  sign  that  it  is  becoming  precarious, 
or  has  been  called  in  question,  when  it  condescends 
to  appeal  to  precedent,  written  statute,  or  regular  juris- 
diction. 


CHAP.  I.  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  129 

Everything  tended  to  confirm,  nothing  to  impede 
or  weaken  the  gradual  condensation  of  the  supreme 
ecclesiastical  power  in  the  Supreme  Bishop.  The 
majesty  of  the  notion  of  one  all-powerful  ruler,  to 
which  the  world  had  been  so  long  familiarized  in 
the  emperors ;  the  discord  and  emulation  among  the 
other  prelates,  both  of  the  East  and  West,  and  the 
manifest  advantage  of  a  supreme  arbiter ;  the  Unity 
of  the  visible  Church,  which  was  becoming,  Unity  of  the 
—  or  had,  indeed,  become  —  the  dominant  Church- 
idea  of  Christendom ;  all  seemed  to  demand,  or  at 
least,  had  a  strong  tendency  to  promote  and  to  main- 
tain the  necessity  of  one  Supreme  Head.  As  the 
unity  in  Christ  was  too  sublimely  spiritual,  so  the 
supremacy  of  the  collective  episcopate,  which  endowed 
each  bishop  with  an  equal  portion  of  apostolic  dignity 
and  of  power,  was  a  notion  too  speculative  and  meta- 
physical for  the  common  mind.  Councils  were  only 
occasional  diets,  or  general  conventions,  not  a  standing 
representative  Senate  of  Christendom.  There  was  a 
simplicity  and  distinctness  in  the  conception  of  one 
visible  Head  to  one  visible  body,  such  as  forcibly 
arrests  and  fully  satisfies  the  less  inquiring  mind, 
which  still  seeks  something  firm  and  stable  whereon 
to  repose  its  faith.  Cyprian,  in  whom  the  unity  of 
the  Church  had  taken  its  severest  form,  though  prac- 
tically he  refused  to  submit  the  independence  of  the 
African  churches  to  the  dictation  of  Rome,  did  far 
more  to  advance  her  power  by  the  primacy  which 
he  assigned  to  St.  Peter,  than  he  impaired  it  by  his 
steady  and  disdainful  repudiation  of  her  authority, 
whenever  it  was  brought  to  the  test  of  submission.1 

1  Qui  cathedram  Petri,  super  quern  fundata  est  Ecclesia,  deserit,  in  ec- 
VOL.  T.  9 


130  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

In  the  West,  throughout  Latin  Christendom,  the 
Roman  See,  in  antiquity,  in  dignity,  in  the  more 
regular  succession  of  its  prelates,  stood  alone  and 
unapproachable.  In  the  great  Eastern  bishoprics  the 
holy  lineage  had  been  already  broken  and  confused 
by  the  claims  of  rival  prelates,  by  the  usurpation  of 
bishops,  accounted  heretical,  at  the  present  period 
Arians  or  Macedonians  or  Apollinarians,  later  Nes- 
torians  or  Monophysites.  Jerusalem  had  never  ad- 
vanced that  claim  to  which  it  might  seem  entitled  by 
its  higher  antiquity.  Jerusalem  was  not  universally 
acknowledged  as  an  Apostolic  See ;  at  all  events  it  was 
the  capital  of  Judaism  rather  than  of  Christianity ; 
and  the  succession,  at  the  time  of  the  Jewish  war, 
and  during  the  period  of  desolation  to  the  time  of 
Hadrian,  had  been  interrupted  at  least  in  its  local 
descent.  At  one  period  Jerusalem  was  su Inordinate 
to  the  Palestinian  Ca3sarea.  Antioch  had  been  per- 
petually contested  ;  its  episcopal  line  had  been  vitiated, 
its  throne  contaminated  by  the  actual  succession  of 
several  Arian  prelates.1  In  Alexandria  the  Arian 
prelates  had  been  considered  lawless  usurpers :  the 
orthodox  Church  had  never  voluntarily  submitted  to 
their  jurisdiction ;  and  Alexandria  had  been  hallowed 
as  the  episcopal  seat  of  the  great  Athanasius.  But 
Athanasius  himself,  when  driven  from  his  see,  had 

clesift  se  esse  confidit  ?  This  was  a  plain  and  intelligible  doctrine.  Episco- 
patus  unus  est,  cujus  a  singulis  in  solidum  pars  tenetur  —  was  a  conception 
far  more  vague  and  abstract,  and  therefore  far  less  popular.  De  Unit. 
Eccl.  See  for  the  dispute  with  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  ch.  i. 

1  The  obvious  difficulty  of  the  Primacy  of  Antioch  as  the  first  See  of  St. 
Peter,  which,  it  might  seem,  had  been,  if  not  objected,  at  least  suggested, 
was  thus  met  by  Innocent  I.  Quae  urbis  Romoe  sedi  non  cederet,  nisi  quod 
ipsa  in  transitu  meruit,  ista  susceptum  apud  se,  consummatumque  gaudet. 
—Innocent.  Epis.  xix.  ad  Alexand. 


CHAP.  I.  SILENT  AGGRESSIONS  OF  ROME.  131 

found  a  hospitable  reception  at  Rome,  and  constant 
support  from  the  Roman  Bishops.  His  presence  had 
reflected  a  glory  upon  that  see,  which,  but  for  one 
brief  period  of  compulsory  apostacy,  had  remained 
rigidly  attached  to  the  orthodox  Trinitarian  opinions. 
Constantinople  was  but  a  new  city,  and  had  no  pre- 
tensions to  venerable  or  apostolic  origin.  It  had  at- 
tained, indeed,  to  the  dignity  of  a  patriarchate,  but 
only  by  the  decree  of  a  recent  council ;  in  other 
respects  it  owed  all  its  eminence  to  being  the  prelacy 
of  new  Rome,  of  the  seat  of  empire.  The  feuds 
and  contests  between  the  rival  patriarchates  of  the 
East  were  constantly  promoting  the  steady  progress 
of  Rome  towards  supremacy.  Throughout  the  fierce 
rivalry  between  Alexandria  and  Constantinople,  the 
hostilities  which  had  even  now  begun  between  Theo- 
philus  and  Chrysostom,  and  which  were  continued 
with  implacable  violence  between  Cyril  and  Nesto- 
rius,  Flavianus  and  Dioscorus,  the  alliance  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  too  important  not  to  be  pur- 
chased at  any  sacrifice ;  and  if  the  independence  of 
the  Eastern  churches  was  compromised,  if  not  by  an 
appeal  to  Rome,  at  least  by  the  ready  admission  of 
her  interference,  the  leaders  of  the  opposing  parties 
were  too  much  occupied  by  their  immediate  objects, 
and  blinded  by  factious  passions,  to  discern  or  to 
regard  the  consequences  of  these  silent  aggressions. 
From  the  personal  or  political  objects  of  these  feuds 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  might  stand  aloof;  in  the  relig- 
ious questions  he  might  mingle  in  undisturbed  dignity, 
or  might  offer  himself  as  mediator,  just  as  he  might 
choose  the  occasion,  and  almost  on  his  own  terms. 
At  the  same  time,  not  merely  on  the  great  subject 


132  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  U 

of  the  Trinity,  had  Rome  repudiated  the  more  ob- 
noxious heresy,  even  on  less  vital  questions,  the  Latin 
capital  happy  in  the  exemption  from  controversial 
bishops  had  rarely  swerved  from  the  canon  of  severe 
orthodoxy ;  and  if  any  one  of  her  bishops  had  been 
forced  or  perplexed  into  a  rash  or  erroneous  decision,  as 
Liberius,  during  his  short  concession  to  semi-Arian- 
ism ;  or,  as  we  shall  see  before  long,  Zosimus  to  Pela- 
gianism  ;  and  a  still  later  pope,  who  was  bewildered 
into  Monophytism ;  their  errors  were  effaced  by  a 
speedy,  full,  and  glorious  recantation. 

f  J  ' 

Thus  the  East,  agitated  by  furious  conflicts  con- 
TheEast  ceming  the  highest  doctrines  of  Christian- 
courts  Rome,  j^  concerning  the  preeminence  of  the  rival 
sees  for  dominant  influence  with  the  Emperor,  was 
still  throwing  itself,  as  each  faction  was  oppressed  by 
its  rival,  at  the  feet  of  remote  and  more  impartial 
Rome.  In  the  West,  at  the  same  time,  the  disputes 
which  were  constantly  arising  about  points  of  disci- 
pline, the  succession  of  bishops,  the  boundaries  of 
conflicting  jurisdictions,  still  demanded  and  were  glad 
to  have  recourse  to  a  foreign  arbitrator ;  and  who  so 
fitting  an  arbiter  as  the  Bishop  of  that  city,  which, 
in  theory  at  least,  was  still  the  centre  of  civil  govern- 
ment, the  seat  of  Caesar's  tribunal,  to  whom  the  Roman 
world  had  acquired  a  settled  and  inveterate  habit  of 
appeal  ?  Rome  the  mother  of  civil,  might  likewise 
give  birth  to  canonical  jurisprudence.1 

For  the  great  talisman  of  the  Papal  influence  was 

1  Until  the  Roman  Curia  became  inordinate  in  its  exactions,  and  so 
utterly  venal  as  it  is  universally  represented  in  later  centuries,  this 
arbitration,  when  so  much  was  yet  unsettled,  while  the  new  society  was 
yet  in  the  process  of  formation,  must  have  tended  to  peace  and  so  to  the 
strength  of  Christianity. 


CHAP.  I.  NAME  OF  ROME.  133 

the  yet  majestic  name  of  Rome.  The  bishops  Name  of 
gave  laws  to  the  city,  which  had  so  long Rome- 
given,  and  still  to  so  great  an  extent,  gave  laws  to 
the  world.  In  the  sentiment  of  mankind,  at  least  in 
the  West,  Rome  had  never  been  dethroned  from  her 
supremacy.  There  were  still  Roman  armies,  Roman 
laws,  Roman  municipalities,  Roman  literature,  in  name 
at  least  a  Roman  Empire.1  Constantinople  boasted 
rather  than  disdained  the  appellation  of  New  Rome. 
But  while  the  Bishops  of  Rome  retained  much  of  the 
awe  and  reverence  which  adhered  to  the  name,  they 
stood  aloof  from  all  which  desecrated  and  degraded 
it.  It  was  the  idolatrous  and  pagan  Rome  which  fell 
before  the  barbarians,  or  rather  was  visited  for  its  vices 
and  crimes,  its  persecutions,  and  its  still  obstinate  in- 
fidelity, by  those  terrible  instruments  of  the  divine 
vengeance.  As  our  history  will  show,  the  discom- 
fiture of  the  heathen  Rhadagaisus,  and  the  tutelary, 
though  partial,  protection  which  Christianity  spread 
over  the  city  during  the  capture  by  Alaric  (to  which 
Augustine  triumphantly  appealed),  were  not  oblit- 
erated by  the  unawed  and  remorseless  devastation 
of  Genseric.  The  retreat  of  Attila,  the  most  ter- 
rible of  all  the  Northern  conquerers,  before  the  im- 
posing sanctity,  as  it  was  universally  believed,  of  Pope 
Leo,  blended  again  in  indissoluble  alliance  the  sacred 
security  of  Rome  with  the  authority  of  her  bishop. 

1  See  in  Ausonius  the  curious  ordo  of  the  cities  of  the  Empire.  —  1. 
Prima  urbes  inter,  divfim  domus,  aurea  Roma.  —  2.  Constantinople,  before 
whom  bows  3.  Carthage  —  4.  Antioch  —  5.  Alexandria  —  6.  Treves  —  7. 
Milan  —  8.  Capua  —  9.  Aquileia  — 10.  Aries  — 11.  Merida  — 12.  Athens  — 
13. 14.  Catania,  Syracuse  — 15.  Toulouse  — 16.  Narbonne  — 17.  Bordeaux. 
The  poet  is  a  Gaul,  a  native  of  Bordeaux.  Ravenna  seems  to  have  fallen 
into  obscurity.  Ausonii.  Poem. 


134  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

Leo  himself,  as  will  be  hereafter  seen,  exalts  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  into  the  Romulus  and  Remus  of  the  new 
universal  Roman  dominion. 

It  was  at  this  period  (the  commencement  of  the 
Accession  of  ^^h  century),  when  the  Imperial  power  was 
innocent.  declining  towards  extinction  in  the  hands 
of  the  feeble  Honorius,  and  the  Roman  arms  were 
for  the  last  time  triumphant,  under  Stilicho,  over  the 
Northern  barbarians,  that  a  prelate  was  placed  on  the 
episcopal  throne  of  Rome,  of  a  bolder  and  more  impe- 
rious nature,  of  unimpeachable  holiness,  who  held  the 
pontifical  power  for  a  longer  period  than  usual  in  the 
rapid  succession  of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  Ambrose 
was  now  dead,  and  there  was  no  Western  prelate, 
at  least  in  Europe,  whose  fame  and  abilities  could 
obscure  that  preeminence,  which  rank  and  position, 
and  in  his  case,  commanding  character,  bestowed  on 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Innocent,  like  most  of  the  great- 
er Popes,  was  by  birth,  if  not  a  Roman,  of  the  Roman 
A.D.  402.  territory.  He  was  born  at  Albano.1  The 
patriotism  of  a  Roman  might  mingle  with  his  holier 
aspirations  for  the  spiritual  greatness  of  the  ancient 
mistress  of  the  world.  Upon  the  mind  of  Innocent 
appears  first  distinctly  to  have  dawned  the  vast  con- 
ception of  Rome's  universal  ecclesiastical  supremacy, 
dim  as  yet  and  shadowy,  yet  full  and  comprehensive 
in  its  outline. 

Up  to  the  accession  of  Innocent,  the  steps  by  which 
the  See  of  Rome,  during  the  preceding  century,  had 
advanced  towards  the  legal  recognition  of  a  suprem- 

1  There  is  an  expression  in  one  of  St.  Jerome's  letters,  which,  taken  lit- 
erally, asserts  Innocent  to  have  been  the  son  of  his  predecessor  Anastasius. 
Qui  apostolicae  cathedrae  et  supradicti  viri  successor  etflius  est  Is  it  to  b« 
orcsumed  that  this  is  an  incautious  metaphor  of  St.  Jerome  ? 


CHAP.  I.  ACCESSION  OF  INNOCENT.  135 

acy,  were  few  but  not  unimportant;  the  first  had 
been  made  by  the  Council  of  Sardica,  the  renown  of 
whose  resolute  orthodoxy  gave  it  peculiar  weight  in 
all  parts  of  Christendom,  where  the  Athanasian  Trini- 
ta  nanism  maintained  its  ascendency.  •  It  is  not  difficult 
to  trace  the  motives  which  influenced  the  Bishops  at 
Sardica.  Great  principles  are  often  established  by 
measures  which  grow  out  of  temporary  interests.  The 
Western  orthodox  Bishops  at  Sardica  hardly  escaped 
being  out-numbered  by  their  heretical  adversaries ; 
there  were  ninety-four  on  one  side,  seventy-six  on 
the  other.  Had  not  the  turbulent,  but  irresolute, 
minority  withdrawn  to  Philippopolis,  and  there  set  up 
a  rival  synod,  the  issue  might  have  been  almost  doubt- 
ful ;  at  ah1  events,  where  parties  were  so  evenly  bal- 
anced, intrigue,  accident,  activity  on  one  part,  supine- 
ness  on  the  other,  or  the  favor  of  the  Emperor,  sardica  347. 
might  summon  an  assembly,  in  which  the  pre-  Rumm  359- 
ponderance  would  be  in  favor  of  Arianism  (it  was  so 
a  few  years  after  at  Rimini)  ;  and  thus  might  heresy 
gain  the  sanction  of  a  Council  of  Christendom.  But 
Rome  had,  up  to  this  time,  before  the  fall  of  Liberius, 
so  firmly,  so  repeatedly,  so  solemnly,  embraced  the 
cause  of  Athanasius,  that  it  might  seem  to  be  irrevo- 
cably committed  to  orthodoxy  ;  an  appeal  to  Rome, 
therefore,  would  always  give  an  opportunity  to  an 
orthodox  minority,  to  annul  or  to  suspend  the  decrees 
of  an  heretical  Church.  In  all  causes,  therefore,  of 
bishops  (and  not  merely  were  the  bishops  hi  general 
the  chief  members  of  Councils,  but  the  first  proceed- 
ing of  all  the  Councils,  at  this  period,  was  to  depose 
the  prelates  of  the  opposite  party)  an  appeal  to  Rome 
would  both  secure  a  second  hearing,  by  more  favorable 


136  LATIN  CHKISTIAXITY.  BOOK  H. 

judges,  of  the  subject  under  controversy,  and  might 
maintain,  notwithstanding  adverse  decrees,  all  the  or- 
thodox bishops  upon  their  thrones.  The  Council  of 
Sardica,  therefore,  in  its  canons,  established  the  law, 
that  on  an  appeal  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  might 
decide  whether  the  judgment  was  to  be  reconsidered, 
and  appoint  judges  for  the  second  hearing  of  the  cause  ; 
he  might  even,  if  he  thought  fit,  take  the  initiative; 
and  delegate  an  ecclesiastic  "  from  his  side,"  to  institute 
a  commission  of  inquiry.1 

The  right  of  appeal  to  Rome,  thus  established  by 
ecclesiastical,  was  confirmed  by  Imperial  authority  dur- 
A.D.  421.  ing  the  reign  of  Valentinian  III.  Up  to  that 

L*wofVal-        .  -       -~r  -e  o  j-  i  , 

time  the  .Lmperors,  it  they  did  not  possess  by 


the  constitution  of  the  Church,  exercised  nevertheless 
by  virtue  of  their  supreme  and  indefeasible  authority, 
and  by  the  irresistible,  and,  as  yet  rarely  contested, 
tenure  of  power,  the  right  of  summary  decision  in 
religious  as  in  civil  causes.  A  feeble  emperor  would 
willingly  devolve  on  a  more  legitimate  court  these 
troublesome  and  perplexing  affairs.  To  a  monarch, 
another  spiritual  Monarch  would  appear  at  once  the 
most  natural  and  the  most  efficient  delegate  to  relieve 
him  from  these  burdens  ;  he  would  feel  no  jealousy 
of  such  useful  and  unconflicting  autocracy  ;  and  the 
Western  Emperor  would  of  course  invest  in  this  part 
of  the  Imperial  prerogative  the  Bishop  of  the  Imperial 
City. 

Now  too  the  temporal  power,  the  Empire,  was  sink- 
ing rapidly  into  the  decrepitude  of  age,  the  Papacy 

1  Et  ai  judicaverit  renovandum  esee  judicium,  renovetur,  et  det  judices; 
si  autem  probaverit,  talem  causam  esse,  ut  non  refricetur,  ea  qua  acta  stint, 
qua  decreverant,  confirmata  erant.  Can.  3.  —  Can.  5  permits  him  to  send 
this  preabyterum  a  latere.  Mansi,  sab  ann. 


CHAP.  I.        DECREPITUDE  OF  TEMPORAL  POWER.  137 

rising  in  the  first  vigor  of  its  youthful  ambition. 
Honorius  was  cowering  in  the  palace  of  Ravenna, 
from  the  perils  which  were  convulsing  the  empire  on 
all  sides,  while  the  provinces  were  withdrawing  their 
doubtful  allegiance,  or  in  danger  of  being  dissevered 
from  the  Roman  dominion.  Innocent  was  on  the 
episcopal  throne  of  Rome,  asserting  his  almost  des- 
potic spiritual  control  over  those  very  provinces. 

Innocent,  in  his  assertion  of  supremacy,  might  seem 
to  disdain  the  authority  of  Council  or  Emperor.  He 
declares,  in  one  of  his  earliest  epistles,  that  all  the 
churches  of  the  West,  not  of  Italy  alone,  but  of 
Gaul,  Spain,  and  Africa,  having  been  planted  by  St. 
Peter  and  his  successors,  owe  filial  obedience  to  the 
parent  See,  are  bound  to  follow  her  example  in  all 
points  of  discipline,  and  to  maintain  a  rigid  uniformity 
with  all  her  usages.1  To  the  minutest  point  Rome 
will  again  be  the  legislator  of  the  world ;  and  it  is 
singular  to  behold  a  representative,  as  it  were,  of  each 
of  these  provinces  bringing  the  first  fruits  of  that  def- 
erence, which  was  construed  into  unlimited  allegiance, 
to  the  feet  of  the  majestic  Pontiff.  The  Bishop  of 
Rouen  requests  from  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  rules 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline  observed  within  his  See.2 


1  Com  sit  manifestum  in  omnem  Italiam,  Gallias,  Hispanias,  Africam 
atque  Siciliam  insulasque  intervenientes  nullum  instituisse  ecclesias  nisi 
eos  quos  venerabilis  Apostolus  Petrus  ej  usque  successores  constituerint 
sacerdotes.    Epist.  ad  Decent.  Episcop.  Eugubin. 

Jaffe  dates  this  Epist.  416.  March  19.     Labbe,  ii.  p.  1249. 

2  In  the  third  rule,  which  gives  the  provincial  synods  of  bishops  supreme 
authority  in  their  own  province,  the  words  "sine  prejudicio  tamen  Ro- 
•nanae  ecclesioe,  cui  in  omnibus  causis  debet  reverentia  custodiri,"  are  re- 
jected as  a  late  interpolation.     Epist.  ad  Victricium.   Labbe,  ii.  p.  1249. 

Dilectio  tua  institutum  secuta  prudentium,  ad  sedem  apostolicam  referre 
maluit,  quid  de  rebus  dubiis  custodiri  deberet,  potius  quam  usurpatione 


138  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  n. 

Innocent  approves  the  zeal  of  the  Gaulish  Bishop 
tfor  uniformity,  so  contrary  to  the  lawless  spirit  of 
innovation,  which  prevailed  in  some  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian world ;  and  sends  him  a  book  containing  certain 
regulations  of  peculiar  severity,  especially  as  to  the* 

404.  Feb.  15.   celibacy  of  the   clergy.     Exuperius,   Bishop 
of  Toulouse,  is  commended  in  a  still  more  lofty  and 
protecting  tone  of  condescension  for  his  wise  recourse 
to  the  See  of  Rome,  rather  than  the  usurpation  of 
undue  authority.     To  the  Spanish  Synod  of  Toledo, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  speaks  something  in  the  character 
of  an  appellant  judge.     The  province  of  Illyricum, 
including  Macedonia  and  Greece,  on  the  original  divis- 

405.  Feb.       ion,  had  been  adjudged  to  the  Western  Em- 
pire.    The  Bishop  of  Rome  exercised  a  certain  juris- 
diction, granted  or  recognized  by  the  Council  of  Sar- 
dica,  as    the   Metropolitan   of  the   West.      Damasus 
had  appointed  the  Bishop  of  Thessalonica,  as  a  kind 
of  legate  or  representative  of  his  authority.     Innocent, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Bishops  of  Macedonia,  expresses 
a  haughty  astonishment  that   his    decisions   are    not 
admitted  without  examination,  and  gravely  insinuates 
that  some  wrong  may  be  intended  to  the  dignity  of 
the  Apostolical  See.1     More  doubtful  was  the  allegiance 
A.D.  414.        of  Africa.     At  the  commencement  of  Inno- 
cent's pontificate,  his  influence  with  the  Emperor  was 

prsesumpta,  qua  sibi  viderentur,  de  singulis  obtinere.    Ad  Exup.  Episc. 
Tol.  Labbe,  ii.  p.  1254. 

1  In  quibus  (epistolis)  multa  posita  pervidi  quse  stuporem  mentibus  nos- 
tris  inducerent,  facerentque  nos  non  modicum  dubitare  utrum  aliter  putare- 
mus  an  ita  esse  posita,  quemadmodum  personabuut.  Qua-  cum  .-;vpius 
repeti  fecissem,  adverti,  sedi  apostolicae  ad  quam  relatio,  quasi  ad  caput 
ecclesiarum  missa  esse  debebat,  aliquam  fieri  injuriam,  cujus  adhuc  in 
ambiguum  sententia  duceretur.  Epist.  xxii.  ad  Episc.  Matedon.  Labbe,  ii. 
1272. 


CHAP.  I.  CHRYSOSTOM.  139 

solicited  for  the  suppression  of  the  obstinate  Donatists. 
Towards  the  close  of  his  life,  a  correspondence  took 
place  concerning  Pelagius  and  his  doctrines.  The 
African  Churches,  even  Augustine  himself,  did  not 
disguise  their  apprehension,  that  Innocent  might  be 
betrayed  into  an  approbation  of  those  tenets ;  they 
desired  to  strengthen  their  own  stern  and  peremp- 
tory decrees  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  The  language  of  Innocent  was  in  A.D.  417. 
his  wonted  imperious  style ;  the  African  Churches 
seem  to  have  treated  his  pretensions  to  superiority 
with  silent  disregard. 

In  the  East,  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  and  even 
Antioch,  were   driven  by    their  own  bitter  Innocent  ^ 
feuds  and  hostilities,  to  court  the  alliance  of  Chry80Stom- 
Rome ;  it  could  hardly  be  without  some  com-  *•»•  40*. 
promise  of  independence. 

In  espousing  the  cause  of  Chrysostom  against  his 
rival  Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  Innocent  took  that 
side  which  was  supported  by  the  better  and  wiser,  as 
well  as  by  the  popular  voice  of  Christendom.  He  was 
the  fearless  advocate  of  persecuted  holiness,  of  elo- 
quence, of  ecclesiastical  dignity,  against  the  aggressions 
of  a  violent  foreign  prelate,  who  was  interfering  in  an 
independent  diocese,  and  against  the  intrigues  of  a 
court  notoriously  governed  by  female  influence.  The 
slight  asperities  of  Chrysostom's  character,  the  monas- 
tic austerities  which  seemed  to  some  ill  suited  to  the 
magnificence  of  so  great  a  prelate,  the  aggressions  on 
the  privileges  of  some  churches  not  strictly  under  his 
jurisdiction,  but  which  were  notoriously  ventured  for 
the  promotion  of  Christian  holiness  by  the  suppression 
of  simony  and  other  worse  vices ;  these  less  obvious 


140  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

causes  of  Chrysostom's  unpopularity  hardly  transpired 
beyond  the  limits  of  his  diocese,  were  lost  in  the  daz- 
zling splendor  of  his  talents  and  his  virtues,  or  forgot- 
ten among  his  cruel  wrongs.1  Chrysostom  appeared 
before  the  more  distant  Christian  world  as  the  greatest 
orator  who  had  ever  ascended  the  pulpit  of  the  church. 
His  name,  the  Golden  Mouth,  expressed  the  universal 
admiration  of  his  powers. 

After  having  held  Antioch  under  the  spell  of  his 
oratory  for  many  years,  he  had  been  called  to  the 
episcopal  throne  of  the  Eastern  Metropolis  by  general 
acclamation.  Now,  notwithstanding  the  fond  attach- 
ment of  the  greater  part  of  Constantinople,  and  the 
manifest  interposition,  as  it  was  supposed,  of  heaven, 
which  on  his  banishment  had  shaken  the  guilty  city 
with  an  earthquake  and  compelled  his  triumphant  re- 
call, he  was  again  driven  from  his  see,  degraded  by  the 
precipitate  decree  of  an  illegal  and  partial  council,  and 
exposed  to  the  most  merciless  persecution.  The  one 
crime,  which  could  have  blinded  into  hatred  the  love 
and  admiration  of  the  Christian  world,  heterodoxy  of 
opinion,  was  not  charged  against  him  by  his  most  ma- 
licious enemies.  His  only  ostensible  delinquency  was 
the  uncompromising  rebuke  of  vice  in  high  places,  and 
disrespect  to  the  Imperial  Majesty,  which,  even  if  true 
to  the  utmost,  however  it  might  astonish  the  timidity, 
or  shock  the  servility  of  the  East,  in  the  West,  to 
which  the  dominion  of  Arcadius  and  Eudoxia  did  not 
extend,  would  be  deemed  only  a  bold  and  salutary 
assertion  of  episcopal  dignity  and  Christian  courage. 
The  letter  addressed  by  Chrysostom,  according  to  the 

1  Compare  Hist,  of  Christianity,  b.  iii.  c.  ix 


CHAP.  I.  SEE  OF   AXTIOCH-  141 

copies  in  the  Greek  writers,  to  the  three  great  prelates 
of  the  West,  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  Milan,  and  Aqui- 
leia,  in  the  Roman  copies  to  Innocent  alone,1  was  writ- 
ten with  ah1  his  glowing  fervor  and  brilliant  per- 
spicuity. After  describing  the  scenes  of  outrage  and 
confusion  in  the  church  at  Easter,  the  violation  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  the  insults  inflicted  on  the  sacred  per- 
sons of  priests  and  dedicated  virgins  and  bishops,  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  entreats  the  friendly  interpo- 
sition of  the  Western  prelates  to  obtain  a  general  and 
legitimate  Council  empowered  to  examine  the  whole 
affair.  The  answer  of  Innocent  is  calm,  moderate, 
dignified,  perhaps  artful.  He  expresses  his  awful  hor- 
ror at  these  impious  scenes  of  violence,  deep  interest 
in  the  fate  of  Chrysostom ;  he  does  not  however  pre- 
judge the  question,  he  does  not  even  refuse  to  commu- 
nicate with  Theophilus,  till  after  the  solemn  decree  of 
a  council.  Yet  the  sympathies  of  Innocent,  as  of  all 
the  better  part  of  Christendom,  were  with  the  eloquent, 
oppressed,  and  patient  exile.  The  sentiments  as  well 
as  the  influence  of  the  Roman  prelate  were  erelong 
proclaimed  to  the  world,  by  an  Imperial  letter  in  favor 

1  There  is  great  variation  in  different  parts  of  the  Roman  copy:  it  is 
sometimes  addressed  to  persons  in  the  plural  number,  sometimes  to  an  in- 
dividual in  the  singular.  This  appears  to  me  no  very  important  argument, 
though  adduced  by  the  most  candid  Protestant  writers,  e.  g.  Shroeck.  This 
cry  of  distress  would  not  be  carefully  or  suspiciously  worded,  so  as  to  pro- 
vide against  any  incautious  admission  of  superiority,  of  which  Chrysostom, 
under  such  circumstances,  thought  little,  even  if  any  such  claims  had  been 
already  made.  But  the  strongest  proof  (if  I  must  enter  into  the  contro- 
versy) that  Chrysostom  and  his  followers  addressed  themselves  to  the 
bbhops  of  Italy,  as  well  as  to  that  of  Rome,  seems  to  me  the  very  passage 
in  the  Epistle  of  the  Emperor  Honorius,  which  is  adduced,  even  by  Pagi, 
to  prove  the  contrary.  Missi  ad  sacerdotes  urbis  jeternse  atqut  Halite  utra- 
que  ex  parte  legati ;  expectabatur  ex  omnium  auctoritate  sententia  .  .  .  • 
Namque  hi,  quorum  expectabatur  auctoritas. 


142  LATDf  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  D. 

of  Chiysostom,  which  no  persuasion  but  that  of  Inno- 
cent could  have  obtained  from  the  Emperor  of  the 
West.  Honorius  openly  espoused  the  cause  of  the 
A.».  406.  exile  :  and  though,  throughout  the  whole  of 
the  transaction,  the  East,  with  something  of  the  irrita- 
ble consciousness  of  wrong  and  injustice,  resented  the 
interference  of  the  West,  and  treated  the  messengers 
of  the  Italian  prelates  with  studied  neglect  and  con- 
tumely, the  defenders  of  Chrysostom  were  so  clearly  on 
the  side  of  justice,  humanity,  generous  compassion  for 
the  oppressed,  as  well  as  of  ecclesiastical  order,  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  Head  at  least  of  the  Italian 
prelates,  could  not  but  rise  in  the  general  estimation 
of  Christendom.  The  fidelity  of  Innocent  to  the 
cause  of  Chrysostom  did  not  cease  with  the  death  of 
the  persecuted  prelate :  he  refused  to  communicate 
with  Atticus,  his  successor,  or  the  usurper,  according 
to  the  conflicting  parties,  of  the  See  of  Constantinople, 
unless  Atticus  would  acknowledge  Chrysostom  to  have 
been  the  rightful  bishop  until  his  death.1  Common 
reverence  for  Chrysostom,  and  common  hostility  to 
Atticus,  brought  Innocent  into  close  alliance  with 


1  There  is  a  regular  act  of  excommunication,  in  some  of  the  Latin 
writers  —  (it  was  brought  to  light  by  Baronius)  —  in  which  Innocent  boldly 
excludes  the  Emperor  Arcadius  from  the  communion  of  the  faithful.  It  is 
expressed  with  all  the  proud  humility,  the  unctuous  imperiousneas  of  a 
later  period.  It  is  given  up,  by  all  the  more  sensible  writers  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  principally  on  account  of  a  fatal  blunder.  It  includes  the 
Dalila,  the  Empress  Eudoxia,  under  the  anathema.  Eudoxia  had  been 
dead  several  years.  (See  Pagi,  sub  ann.  407.)  I  am  in  constant  perplex- 
ity; fearing,  on  one  hand,  to  omit  all  notice  of,  on  the  other  feeling  some- 
thing like  contempt  for,  these  forgeries,  which  are  always  #o  injurious  to  the 
cause  they  wish  to  serve.  As  an  impartial  historical  inquirer.  I  continually 
rise  from  them  with  my  suspicion,  even  of  better  attested  documents,  so 
much  sharpened,  that  I  have  to  struggle  vigorously  against  a  general 
tkepticism. 


CHAP.  I.  CAPTURE  OF  ROME  BY  ALARIC.  143 

Alexander,  Bishop  of  Antioch.  During  his  corre- 
spondence with  Alexander,  Innocent  is  dis-  A.D.  «6. 
posed  to  attribute  a  subordinate  primacy  to  Antioch, 
as  the  temporary  See  of  St.  Peter.  Rome  now  chose 
to  rest  her  title  to  supremacy  on  the  succession  from 
the  great  Apostle.  Peter  could  hardly  have  passed 
through  any  see,  without  leaving  behind  him  some 
inheritance  of  peculiar  dignity;  while  Rome,  as  the 
scene  of  his  permanent  residence  and  martyrdom, 
claimed  the  undoubted  succession  to  almost  monarchi- 
cal supremacy. 

That  which  might  have  appeared  the  most  fatal 
blow  to  Roman  greatness,  as  dissolving  the  Siege  and 
spell  of  Roman  empire,  the  capture,  the  con-  RomeUby°f 
flagration,  the  plunder,  the  depopulation  of  Alanc< 
Rome  by  the  barbarian  Goths,  tended  directly  to 
establish  and  strengthen  the  spiritual  supremacy  of 
Rome.  It  was  pagan  Rome,  the  Babylon  of  sensual- 
ity, pride,  and  idolatry  which  fell  before  the  triumphant 
Alaric ;  the  Goths  were  the  instruments  of  divine 
vengeance  against  paganism,  which  lingered  in  this  its 
last  stronghold.  Christianity  hastened  to  disclaim  all 
interest,  all  sympathy  in  the  fate  of  the  "  harlot  that 
sat  on  the  seven  hills."  Paganism  might  seem  rashly 
to  accept  this  desperate  issue,  girding  itself  for  one 
final  effort,  and  proclaiming,  that  as  Rome  had  brought 
ruin  on  her  own  head  by  abandoning  her  gods,  so  her 
gods  had  forever  abandoned  the  unfaithful  capital. 
The  eternal  city  was  manifestly  approaching  one  of 
the  epochs  in  her  eternity.  Three  times  during  the 
first  ten  years  of  the  fifth  century  and  of  the  pontif- 
icate of  Innocent,  the  first  time  under  Alaric,  the 
second  under  Rhadagaisus,  the  third  again  under 


144  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

Alaric,  the  barbarians  crossed  the  Alps  with  over- 
whelming forces.  Twice  the  valor  and  military  abil- 
ities of  one  man,  Stilicho,  diverted  the  storm  from 
400  to  403.  the  walls  of  Rome.  In  his  first  expedition 

Battle  of 

Poiientu.  Alaric,  after  his  defeat  at  Pollentia,1  endeav- 
ored to  throw  himself  upon  the  capital.  He  was  re- 
called by  the  skilful  movements  of  Stilicho,  to  suffer 
a  final  discomfiture  under  the  walls  of  Verona.  The 
poet  commemorates  the  victories  of  Stilicho,  the  tri- 
umph of  Honorius  in  Rome  for  these  victories.  In 
the  splendid  verses  on  the  ovation  of  Honorius,  it  is 
no  wonder  that  Pope  Innocent  finds  no  place.  Clau- 
dian  maintains  his  invariable  and  total  silence  as  to  the 
existence  of  Christianity.  From  his  royal  mansion  on 
the  Palatine  Honorius  looks  down  on  no  more  glorious 
sight  than  the  temples  of  his  ancestors,  which  crowd 
the  Forum  in  their  yet  inviolable  majesty ;  the  eye  is 
dazzled  and  confounded  with  the  blaze  of  their  bronzed 
columns  and  their  roofs  of  gold ;  and  with  their  statues 
which  studded  the  skies  :  they  are  the  household  gods 
of  the  emperor.  That  the  emperor  worshipped  other 
gods,  or  was  ruled  by  other  priests,  appears  from  no 
one  word.2  The  Jove  of  the  Capitol  might  seem  still 
the  tutelar  god  of  Rome.  Claudian  had  wound  up 
his  poem  on  the  Gothic  war,  in  which  he  equals  the 

1  Gibbon,  c.  xxx. 

1 "  Tot  circum  delubra  yidet,  tantisque  Deorum 
Cingitur  excubiis.    Jurat  infra  tecta  Tonantis 
Cernere  Tarpeii  pendentes  rupe  Gigantas, 
Caelatagque  fores,  mediUque  rolantia  sign* 
Nubibus.  et  densum  stipantibus  tether*  templla 

Acies  stupet  igne  metalll. 
Et  circomfuso  trepidans  obtunditur  anro. 
Agnoscisne  tuos,  Princeps  renerande,  Penates  ?  " 
de  VI.  Cons.  Hon.  43,  63. 

Compare  on  Claudian  note  in  Hist,  of  Christianitj. 


CHAP.  1.  RHADAGAISUS  —  STILICHO.  145 

victory  of  Pollentia  with  that  of  Harms  over  the 
Cimbrians ;  he  ends  with  that  solemn  admonition, 
"  Let  the  frantic  barbarians  learn  hence  respect  for 
Rome." 

But  three  years  after,  the  terrible  Rhadagaisus,  at 
the  head  of  an  enormous  force  of  mingled  barbarians, 
swept  over  the  whole  North  of  Italy,  and  encamped 
before  the  walls  of  Florence.  Rhadagaisus  was  a 
pagan  ;  he  sacrificed  daily  to  some  deity,  whom  the 
Latin  writers  call  by  the  name  of  Jove.  The  party 
at  Rome,  attached  to  their  ancient  worship,  are  accused 
of  having  contemplated  with  more  than  secret  joy  the 
approach  of,  it  might  seem,  the  irresistible  barbarian. 
They  did  this,  notwithstanding  his  terrible  threats 
that  he  would  sacrifice  the  senate  of  Rome  on  the 
altars  of  the  gods  which  delight  in  human  blood. 
The  common  enmity  to  Christianity,  according  to  St. 
Augustine,  quenched  the  love  of  their  country,  their 
proud  attachment  to  Rome.  But  God  himself,  by 
the  unexpected  discomfiture  of  Rhadagaisus,  A.D.  405. 
crushed  their  guilty  hopes,  and  rescued  Rome  from 
the  public  restoration  of  paganism. 

The  consummate  generalship  of  Stilicho,1  by  which 
he  gradually  enclosed  the  vast  forces  of  Rhadagaisus 
among  the  mountains  in  the  neighborhood  of  Florence, 
himself  on  the  ridge  of  Fassulse,  till  they  died  off  by 
famine  and  disease,  was  utterly  incomprehensible  to 
his  age.  Christianity  took  to  itself  the  whole  glory 
of  Stilicho,  the  relief  of  Florence,  the  dispersion  and 
reduction  to  captivity  of  the  barbaric  forces,  and  the 
death  of  Rhadagaisus,  who  was  ordered  to  summary 
execution.  A  vision  of  St.  Ambrose  had  predicted 

i  Gibbon,  loc.  cit.,  will  furnish  the  authorities. 
VOL.  i.  10 


146  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

the  relief  of  Florence,  and  nothing  less  than  the  imme- 
diate succor  of  God,  or  of  his  Apostles,  could  account 
for  the  unexpected  victory :  and  this  strong  religious 
feeling  no  doubt  mingled  with  the  common  infatuation 
which  seized  all  parties.  Rome,  it  was  thought,  with 
a  feeble  emperor  at  a  distance,  with  few  troops,  and 
those  mostly  barbarians,  was  safe  in  the  majesty  of  her 
name  and  the  prescriptive  awe  of  mankind.  Christ, 
or  her  tutelar  Apostles,  who  had  revealed  the  discom- 
fiture of  Rhadagaisus,  had  protected,  and  would  to  the 
end  protect,  Christian  Rome  against  all  pagan  invaders, 
baffle  the  treasonable  sympathy,  and  disperse  the  sacri- 
legious prayers,  of  those  who,  true  to  the  ancient  re- 
ligion, were  false  to  the  real  greatness  of  Rome.  So 
often  as  heathen  forces  should  menace  the  temples, 
not  of  the  Capitoline  Jove,  or  those  yet  un cleansed 
from  the  pollutions  of  their  idolatries,  but  those,  if  less 
splendid,  more  holy  fanes  protected  by  the  relics  of 
Apostles  and  Martyrs,  Rome  would  witness,  as  she 
had  already  witnessed,  the  triumph  of  her  Christian 
emperor,  the  consecration  of  the  spoils  of  the  defeated 
barbarians  on  the  altars  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  of 
Christ.1 

The  sacrifice  of  Stilicho2  to  the  dark  intrigues  of 
Diograce        the  court  of  Ravenna  was  the  last  fatal  sign 

and  death  n     •,••>•,  • 

of  stiiicho.  of  this  pride  and  security.  Both  Christian 
and  pagan  writers  combine  to  load  the  memory  of 
Stilicho  with  charges  manifestly  intended  to  exculpate 
the  court  of  Honorius  from  the  guilt  and  folly  of  his 


1  Paulinos  in  vit  Ambrosii,  c.  50.  Augustin.  de  Civ.  Dei,  v.  23.    Orosius, 
vii.  37. 

2  Stilicho  was  married  to  Serena,  the  sister  of  Honorius.    Honorius  had 
married  in  succession  Maria  and  Thermantia,  the  daughters  of  Stilicho. 


CHAP.  I.  DEATH  OF  STILICHO.  147 

disgrace,  and  his  surrender  by  a  Christian  bishop  after 
he  had  sought,  himself  a  Christian,  sanctuary  at  the 
altar  of  the  church  of  Ravenna,  and  his  perfidious 
execution.  The  Christians  accuse  him  of  a  design  to 
depose  the  emperor,  who  was  both  his  brother-in-law 
and  his  son-in-law,  and  to  elevate  his  own  heir  Euche- 
rius  to  the  Imperial  throne.  Eucherius,  it  is  asserted, 
but  with  no  proof,  and  with  all  probability  against  it, 
was  a  pagan ;  the  public  restoration  of  paganism,  as 
the  religion  of  the  Empire,  was  to  be  the  first  act  of 
the  new  dynasty.1  The  ungrateful  pagans  seem  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  this  magnificent  scheme  in  their 
favor ;  they  too  brand  Stilicho  with  the  name  of  traitor, 
and  ascribe  to  his  perfidious  dealings  with  Alaric  the 
final  ruin  of  Rome.2  They  hated  him  as  the  enemy, 
the  despoiler  of  their  religion ;  as  having  robbed  the 
temples  of  their  treasures,  burned  the  Sibylline  books, 
stripped  from  the  doors  of  the  Capitol  the  plates  of 
gold.  Stilicho  knew  the  weakness  as  well  as  the 
strength  of  Rome  ;  that  may  have  been  but  wise  and 
necessary  policy,  in  order,  by  timely  concession  and 
tribute  under  the  honorable  name  of  boon  or  largess, 
to  keep  the  formidable  barbarian  beyond  the  frontiers 
of  Italy,  which  may  have  seemed  treasonable  degrada- 
tion to  the  haughty  court,  blind  to  its  own  impotence. 

1  Orosius,  vii.  38. 

2  So  Rutilius  Numatianus,  who  hated  Christianity — 

"  Quo  magis  est  facinus  diri   Stilichonis  iniquum, 

Proditor  arcani  qui  fuit  imperil. 
Romano  generi  dum  nititur  ease  superstes, 

Crudelis  summis  miscuit  ima  furor. 
Dumque  timet,  quicquid  se  fecerat  ante  timer!, 
Immisit  Latiae  barbara  tela  neci." 

Rutil.  Itin.  ii.  41. 

•  Compare  Gibbon,  c.  xxx. 


148  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

The  death  of  Stilicho  was  the  signal  for  the  reap- 
Aiarfc's  pearance  of  Alaric  again  in  arms  in  the 
inTMion.  centre  of  Italy.  His  pretext  for  this  second 
invasion  was  the  violation  of  the  treaties  entered  into 
by  Stilicho.  At  all  events,  the  unanswerable  t>  >ti- 
mony  to  the  abilities  of  Stilicho,  if  not  to  his  fidelity, 
is  that  which  seemed  to  be  the  immediate,  inevitable 
consequence  of  his  disgrace  and  execution.  No  sooner 
was  Stilicho  dead,  than  Rome  lay  open  to  the  barba- 
rian conqueror.  Unopposed,  almost  without  a  skir- 
mish, laughing  to  scorn  the  slow  and  inefficient  prepa- 
rations of  the  emperor  and  of  Olympius  who  ruled  the 
emperor,  and  who  had  misguided  him  to  the  ruin  of 
Stilicho,  Alaric  advanced  from  the  Alps  to  the  walls 
of  Rome.  The  first  act  of  defence  adopted  by  the 
senate  of  Rome  was  the  judicial  murder  of  Serena,  the 
widow  of  Stilicho.  She  was  accused  of  a  design  to  be- 
tray the  city  to  the  Goth.  Both  parties*  seem  to  have 
consented  to  this  deed.  The  heathens  remembered 
that  when  Theodosius  the  Great  had  struck  the  deadly 
blow  against  the  rites  and  the  temples  of  paganism,  by 
prohibiting  all  public  expenditure  on  heathen  ceremo- 
A.D.  408.  nies,  Serena  had  stripped  a  costly  necklace 
from  the  statue  of  Rhea,  the  most  ancient  and  venera- 
ble of  Rome's  goddesses,  and  herself  ostentatiously 
wore  the  precious  spoil ;  that  neck  was  now  given  up 
to  strangulation,  a  righteous  and  appropriate  punish- 
ment for  her  impiety.  The  historian  seems  to  inti- 
mate l  that  the  Romans  were  surprised  that  the  death 
of  Serena  produced  no  effect  on  the  remorseless  Goth. 
Btegeof  Rome  ^e  siege  °f  Rome  was  formed ;  the  vast 
k.D.408.  population,  accustomed  to  live,  the  wealthy 

1  Zosimus  —  Sozomen,  ix.  6. 


CHAP.  I.  ETRUSCAN   DIVINERS.  149 

in  luxury  perhaps  to  no  great  extent  moderated  by 
Christianity,  the  poor  by  gratuitous  distributions  at 
the  expense  of  the  public  or  of  the  rich,  to  which 
Christian  charity  had  now  come  in  aid,1  were  suddenly 
reduced  to  the  worst  extremities  of  famine.  The 
public  distributions  were  diminished  to  one  half,  to  one 
third.  The  heaps  of  dead  bodies,  which  there  wanted 
space  to  bury,  produced  a  pestilence.  In  vain  the 
Senate  endeavored  to  negotiate  an  honorable  capitula- 
tion. Alaric  scorned  alike  their  money,  their  despair, 
their  pride.  When  they  spoke  of  their  immense  pop- 
ulation, he  burst  out  into  laughter,  —  "  The  thicker 
the  hay,  the  easier  it  is  mown."  On  his  demand  of 
an  exorbitant  ransom,  the  Senate  humbly  inquired, 
"  "What,  then,  do  you  leave  us  ? "  "  Your  lives !  " 
replied  the  insulting  Goth. 

During  this  first  siege  Innocent  was  in  Rome.  The 
strange  stoiy  of  the  desperate  proposition  to  deliver 
the  city  by  the  magical  arts  of  certain  Etrus-  Etruscan 
can  diviners,  who  had  power,  it  was  sup- divmers- 
posed,  to  call  down  and  direct  the  lightnings  of  heaven, 
appears,  in  different  forms,  hi  the  pagan  and  Christian 
historians.2  Innocent  himself  is  said,  by  the  heathen 
Zosimus,  to  have  assented  to  the  idolatrous  ceremony. 
If  this  be  true,  it  is  possible  that  the  mind  of  the 
Christian  Prelate  may  have  been  so  entirely  unhinged 
by  the  terrors  of  the  siege  and  the  dreadful  sufferings 
of  the  people,  that  he  may  have  yielded  to  any  hope, 
however  wild,  of  averting  the  ruin.  It  is  possible, 

1  Laeta,  the  wife  of  Gratian,  and  her  mother,  were  distinguished  by  their 
abundant  charities,  which  at  least  mitigated  the  sufferings  of  multitudes. 

2  Compare  Hist  of  Christianity,  iii.  181.    Zosimus,  v.  41.    Sozomen, 
ht.  6. 


150  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

though  less  probable,  that  he  may  have  known  or  sup- 
posed the  Etruscans  to  be  possessed  of  some  skilful, 
and  in  no  way  supernatural,  means  of  producing  ap- 
parent wonders,1  which  might  awe  the  ignorant  barba- 
rians, and  of  which  the  use  might  be  justified  by  the 
dreadful  crisis ;  and  if  these  arts  were  thought  super- 
natural, it  was  not  for  him  to  expose,  at  least  for  the 
present,  the  useful  delusion.  At  all  events,  to  judge 
the  conduct  of  Innocent,  we  must  throw  ourselves 
completely  back  into  the  terror  and  affliction,  the  con- 
fusion and  prostration  of  that  disastrous  tune.  The 
whole  history  is  obscure  and  contradictory.  The 
Christian  writer  asserts  that  the  ceremony  did  take 
place,  but  that  the  Christians  (he  does  not  name  Inno- 
cent) stood  aloof  from  the  profane  and  ineffectual  rite. 
The  heathen  aver,  that  the  Senate,  after  grave  deliber- 
ation, refused  to  sanction  its  public  performance,  and 
that,  in  fact,  it  did  not  take  place.  The  barbarian,  at 
Capitulation,  length,  condescended  to  accept  a  ransom,  in 
some  proportion  to  the  wealth  of  the  city  —  5000 
pounds  of  gold,  30,000  of  silver,  four  thousand  silken 
robes,  3000  pieces  of  scarlet  cloth,  3000  pounds  of 
pepper.  To  make  up  the  deficiency  of  the  precious 
metals,  the  heathen  temples,'  to  the  horror  of  that 
party,  were  despoiled ;  the  time-honored  statues  of 
gods  were  melted  to  make  up  the  amount  demanded 
by  the  barbarian.  The  last  fatal  sign  and  omen  of 
the  departure  of  Roman  greatness  was,  that  the  statue 
of  Fortitude,  or  Virtue,  was  thrown  into  the  common 
mass.2 

1  See  Eusebe  Salverte,  on  the  knowledge  possessed  by  the  ancients  in 
conducting  lightning.  —  Sciences  Occultes. 

2  'A&M  ndi  ixuvevoav  nva  ruv  tic  xpvaov  not  apyiipov  ireTroujfievuv,  uv 


CHAP.  I.  CAPITULATION  OF  ROME.  151 

Alaric  retired  from  Rome,  his  army  increased  by 
multitudes  of  slaves  from  the  city  and  the  neighbor- 
hood, who,  it  is  said,  to  the  number  of  40,000,  had 
found  refuge  in  his  camp.  The  infatuated  pride,  the 
insincerity,  the  treachery  of  the  court  of  Ravenna, 
rendered  impracticable  all  negotiations  for  peace.  The 
minister  Olympius,  the  chief  agent  in  the  assassination 
of  Stilicho,  has  found  favor,  of  which  he  seems  to  have 
been  utterly  unworthy,  from  Christian  writers,  on 
account  of  some  letters  addressed  to  him  by  St.  Augus- 
tine. Even  his  fall  produced  no  great  change.  Hono- 
rius,  indeed,  seems  to  have  occupied  his  time  at  this 
crisis  in  framing  edicts  against  Jews  and  heretics,  and 
other  decrees,  as  if  for  a  peaceful  and  extensive  empire. 
Under  Olympius,  he  had  promulgated  the  Imperial 
rescript,  which  deprived  the  heathen  temples  of  their 
last  revenue  ;  it  was  confiscated  for  the  use  of  the  de- 
vout soldiers.  The  statues  of  the  gods  were  ordered 
to  be  thrown  down ;  the  temples  in  the  cities  were 
seized  for  public  uses,  others  were  to  be  destroyed  ;  the 
banquets  (epulae)  prohibited.1  But  he  was  compelled 
to  repeal  a  law  which  deprived  him  of  the  services  of 
all  heathens.  Generides,  a  valiant  and  able  pagan, 
was  permitted  to  resume  the  military  belt,  and  to  take 
the  command  of  part  of  the  Imperial  forces.  A  sec- 
ond time  Alaric  appeared  before  Rome.  He  seized 
upon  the  port  of  Ostia,  and  this  cut  off  at  once  almost 

fjv  Kal  rb  rrje  avSpiaf,  rjv  Kakovai  'Pu/icuoi  ObiprovTefi'  ovnep  duup&apEVTOf, 
baa  rjjf  dvdpiaf  ^v  KCU  operas  napa  'Puftaioif  aneafiri.  .  .  .  Zosimus, 
v.  41. 

1  This  law  is  dated  the  17th  of  the  calends  of  December,  408.  Templo- 
rum  detrahantur  annonse  et  rem  annonariam  jubent,  expensis  devotissimo- 
rum  militum  profutura,  &c.  Compare  Beugnot,  ii.  p.  49,  et  seqq.  Cod 
Theodos.  xvi.  10, 19. 


152  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

all  the  supplies  of  the  city.1  Rome  opened  her  gates, 
Attains  and  Alaric  set  up  a  pageant  emperor,  Attains, 
A.D.  409.'  as  a  rival  to  the  emperor  in  Ravenna.  The 
Christians  beheld  the  elevation  of  Attalus,  a  pagan, 
who  submitted  to  Arian  baptism,  but  openly  attempted 
to  restore  the  party  of  paganism,  with  undisguised 
aversion.  Lampadius,  the  Senator,  at  the  head  of 
this  party,  was  Praetorian  Prefect,  Tertullus  Consul. 
Tertullus  boldly  declared  that  to  the  Consulate  he 
should  add  the  High  Priesthood.2  The  Pagan  histo- 
rian describes  the  universal  joy  of  Rome  at  the  eleva- 
tion of  such  just  and  noble  magistrates.  The  Chris- 
tians3 looked  eagerly  to  the  court  of  Ravenna.  Alaric 
was  encamped  between  the  Christian  and  pagan  cities, 
between  Ravenna  and  Rome.  The  feeble  government 
of  Attalus  had  to  encounter  an  enemy  even  more  for- 
midable than  the  Christians.  The  Count  Heraclian 
closed  the  ports  of  Africa :  a  famine  even  more  ter- 
rible than  during  the  former  siege,  and  even  that  had 
reduced  men  to  the  most  loathsome  and  abominable 
food,  afflicted  the  enfeebled  and  diminished  population. 
A  strange  and  revolting  anecdote  illustrates  at  once 
Roman  manners  and  this  dire  calamity.  The  Romans, 
though  they  had  no  bread,  had  still  their  Circensian 
games.  In  the  midst  of  the  excitement,  the  ears  of 
the  Emperor  were  assailed  with  a  wild  cry  —  Fix  the 
tariff  for  human  flesh.4  All  these  calamities  the  Chris- 
tians ascribed  to  the  restoration  of  heathen  rites. 

1  As  usual,  the  dealers  in  grain  were  accused  of  hoarding  their  stores,  in 
wder  to  possess  themselves  of  all  the  remaining  wealth  of  the  city. 

2  Sozom.  he.  9.  8  Oros.  vii.  42. 

4  Zosimus  inserts  the  words  in  Latin  —  Pone  pretium  carni  humanse. 
The  price  of  bread,  as  of  all  other  articles,  was  fixed  by  the  government 
Zosimus,  vi.  11. 


CHAP.  I.       THIRD  SIEGE  AND  CAPTURE  OF  ROME.          153 

Attalus,  at  the  word  of  his  Gothic  master,  descended 
from  his  throne,  and  sank  back  to  his  former  Third  siege 
insignificance.  But  Rome,  when  Alaric  ap-  of  Rome- 
peared  a  third  time  under  its  walls,  prepared  to  close 
her  gates,  and  to  act  on  the  defensive  (the  Emperor 
Honorius  had  received  the  scanty  succor  of  six  cohorts 
from  the  East,  and  Rome  was  in  frantic  hope  of  rescue 
from  Ravenna).  Weakness  or  treachery  baffled  this 
desperate,  if  courageous,  determination.  At  the  dead 
of  night,  the  Salarian  gate  was  opened ;  the  morning 
beheld  Rome  in  the  possession  of  the  conqueror ;  but 
the  conqueror,  though  a  barbarian  and  a  heretic,  was 
a  Christian.  Over  the  fall  of  Rome,  history  might 
seem,  in  horror,  to  have  dropped  a  veil.1 

However  the  first  appalling  intelligence  of  this  event 
shook  the  Roman  world  to  the  centre,  and  capture  of 
the  fearful  scene  of  pillage,  violation,  and  de-  f.nTIio. 
struction  by  fire  and  sword,  was  imagined  to  Aug' 24' 
surpass  in  its  horrors  everything  recorded  in  profane  or 
sacred  history,  yet  the  shock  passed  away  ;  and  Rome 
quietly   assumed  her    second,   her   Christian    empire. 
When  the  first  stunning  tidings  of  the  fall  of  the  Im- 
perial City  reached  Jerome  in  his  retirement  in  Pales- 
tine, even  some  time  after,  when  he  had  held  inter- 
course with  fugitives  from  Rome,  the  capture  represents 
itself  to  his  vivid  fancy  as  one  dark  and  terrific  mass 
of  havoc  and  ruin.     It  was  accompanied  by  no  mitigat- 
ing or  relieving  circumstances  ;  by  none  of  those  strik- 
'ng  incidents  of  Christian  piety  and  mercy,  which,  in 


1  Rome  may  be  said  to  have  fallen  without  an  historian.  Her  ruin  was 
indeed  described  by  the  Greek  Zosimus,  but  his  sixth  book  is  lost.  Orosius 
cannot  be  dignified  by  the  name  —  his  work  is  but  a  summary  of  Augus- 
tine's City  of  God. 


154  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

the  pages  of  Augustine  and  Orosius,  are  thrown  across 
the  general  gloom.  The  sudden  horror,  as  well  as  con- 
sternation, joined  with  the  gloomy  temperament  of  Je- 
rome to  deepen  the  darkness  of  the  scene.1  He  asserts 
that  the  famine  had  already  so  thinned  the  population, 
that  few  remained  in  the  city  to  be  taken.  He  heaps 
together  the  awful  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  on 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  and  other  eastern  cities,  and 
the  noble  lines  of  Virgil  on  the  sack  of  Troy,  as  but 
feebly  descriptive  of  the  night  in  which  fell  the  Moab 
of  the  West.  Nor  can  it  be  supposed  that,  whatever 
the  disposition  or  even  the  orders  of  Alaric,  the  capture 
of  a  city  so  wealthy,  so  luxurious,  so  populous,  by  a 
vast  and  ill-disciplined  host  of  barbarians,  at  least  at 
their  first  irruption,  could  be  more  than  a  mid  tumult 
of  fury,  license,  plunder,  bloodshed,  and  conflagration. 
Multitudes  of  that  host,  no  doubt,  still  held  their  old 
warlike  Teutonic  faith.  In  those  who  were  called 
Christians  the  ferocity  of  the  triumphant  soldier  was 
hardly  mitigated  by  the  softening  influences  of  the  Gos- 
pel. The  forty  thousand  slaves  said  to  have  joined  the 
army  of  Alaric,  brought  their  revenge  and  their  local 
and  personal  knowledge  of  the  richest  palaces,  and  of 
the  most  opulent  families,  which  would  furnish  the  most 
attractive  victims  to  lust  or  to  pillage.  But  the  calam- 
ities that  involved  in  ruin  almost  the  whole  pagan  pop- 
ulation and  the  palaces  of  the  ancient  families,  which 

1  Terribilis  de  Occidente  rumor  affertur  ....  —  Hteret  vox  et  singultus 
intercipiunt  verba  dictantis.  Capitur  urbs,  quae  totum  cepit  orbem,  imo 
fame  perit,  antequam  gladio,  et  vix  pauci,  qui  cnperentur,  inventi  sunt. 
Epist.  xciv.  Marcell&e  Epitaph.  Yet,  in  the  same  letter,  he  writes  to  Mar- 
cella — Sit  mihi  fas  audita  loqui;  imo  a  sanctis  viris  visa  narrare,  qui  inter- 
fuere  prcesentes.  —  Ibid. 

Nocte  Moab  capta  est,  nocte  cecidit  murus  ejus.  Hieronym.  i.  121,  ad 
Principiam. 


CHAP.  I.  INFLUENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  155 

still  adhered  to  their  ancestral  gods,  are  lost  in  oblivion  ; 
while  Christianity  has  boastfully,  or  gratefully,  pre- 
served those  exceptional  incidents,  in  which  through  her 
influence,  and  in  her  behalf,  the  common  disaster  was 
rebuked,  checked,  mitigated.  The  last  feeble  murmurs 
of  paganism  arraigned  Christianity  as  the  Extinction 
cause  of  the  desertion  of  the  city  by  her  an-  ofv*&™m- 
cient  and  mighty  gods,  and,  therefore,  of  her  inevitable 
fate.  Christianity  was  now  so  completely  the  mistress 
of  the  human  mind,  as  to  assert  that  it  was,  indeed,  the 
power  of  her  God  —  her  justly  provoked  and  right- 
eously avenging  God  —  which  had  brought  to  its  final 
close  the  Gentile  sovereignty  of  Rome.  Nothing  pagan 
had  escaped,  but  that  which  found  shelter  under  Chris- 
tianity. For  Alaric,  though  an  Arian,  was  a  Christian. 
His  conduct  was  strongly  contrasted  with  what  might 
have  been  feared  from  the  heathen  Rhadagaisus,  if  God 
had  abandoned  Rome  to  his  fury.  The  Goth  had  been 
throughout  under  the  awful  control  of  Christianity.1 
He  is  said  to  have  issued  a  proclamation,  Influence  Of 
which,  while  it  abandoned  the  guilty  and  lux-  Christianity- 
urious  city  to  plunder,  commanded  regard  for  human 
life ;  and  especially  the  most  religious  respect  for  the 
Churches  of  the  Apostles.  In  obedience  to  these  com- 

1  The  great  Christian  argument  is  summed  up  in  this  noble  passage  of 
Augustine :  — 

Quicquid  igitur  vastationis,  trucidationis,  depredationis,  concremationis, 
affliction!*  in  ista  recentissima  Romana  clade  commissum  est:  facit  hoc 
consuetudo  bellorum.  Quod  autem  more  novo  factum  est,  quod  musitata 
rerum  facie  immanitas  barbara  tarn  mitis  apparuit,  ut  amplisshnae  basilica 
implendae  populo,  cui  parceretur,  eligerentur  et  decernerentur,  ubi  nemo 
feriretur,  unde  nemo  raperetur,  quo  liberandi  multi  a  miserantibus  hostibus 
iucerentur,  unde  captivandi  nulli,  nee  a  crudelibus  hostibus  abducerentur: 
hoc  Christi  nomini,  hoc  Christiano  tempori  tribuendum,  quisquis  non  videt, 
csecus ;  quisquis  videt,  nee  laudat,  ingratus ;  quisquis  laudanti  reluctatur, 
insanus  est.  Augustin.  Tract,  de  excid.  Urbis. 


156  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

mands,  and  under  the  especial  control  of  the  Almighty, 
among  the  smoking  ruins,  the  plundered  houses  and 
temples,  the  families  desolated  by  the  sword,  or  by  out- 
rages worse  than  death,  the  Christian  edifices  alone 
commanded  at  least  some  reverence  and  security. 
Everywhere  else  was  promiscuous  massacre,  peace  and 
safety  alone  in  the  churches.  The  heathens  them- 
selves fled  to  these,  the  only  places  of  refuge  ;  they 
took  shelter,  in  their  terror  and  despair,  under  the  al- 
tars which  they  despised  or  hated.  The  more  solid 
and  majestic  structures  of  paganism  would,  no  doubt, 
defy  the  injuries  which  might  be  wrought  by  barbari- 
ans, more  intent  on  plunder  than  destruction,  but  their 
most  hallowed  sanctuaries  were  violated.  Before  the 
Christian  Churches  alone  rapacity,  and  lust,  and  cru- 
elty were  arrested,  and  stood  abashed.  When  the  con- 
flagration raged,  as  it  did  in  some  parts  of  the  city, 
amid  private  houses,  palaces,  or  temples,  some  of  the 
sacred  edifices  of  the  Christians  might  be  enveloped 
in  the  flames.  But  the  more  important  churches  — 
those  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  —  were  respected  by 
the  spreading  fires,  as  well  as  by  the  infuriated  soldiery.1 
There  the  obedient  sword  of  the  conqueror  paused  in 
its  work  of  death,  and  even  his  cupidity  was  overawed.2 
Of  all  the  temple  treasuries,  the  public  or  private 
hoards  of  precious  metals,  which  the  owners  were  com- 
pelled to  betray  by  the  most  excruciating  tortures,  the 
jewels,  the  plate,  the  spoils  of  centuries  of  conquest, 
the  accumulated  plunder  of  provinces,  only  the  sacred 

1  Augustiii.  de  Civ.  Dei,  ii.  1.  a.  7.  Yet  this  was  unknown  to  Jerome. 
He  says,  In  cineres  ac  tavillas  sacra  quondam  ecclesia  coneiderunt.  Epist. 
xciii. 

3  Perhaps  the  remote  and  even  extramural  situation  of  these  churchea 
night  tend  to  their  security. 


CHAP.  I.  PROTECTION  OF  FEMALES.  157 

vessels  and  ornaments  of  Christian  worship  remained 
inviolate.  It  was  said  that  sacred  vessels  found  with- 
out the  precincts  of  the  Church  were  borne  with  rev- 
erential decency  into  the  sanctuary.  Of  this  Orosius 
relates  a  remarkable  and  particular  history.  A  fierce 
soldier  entered  in  quest  of  plunder  into  the  dwelling  of 
an  aged  Christian  virgin.  He  demanded,  in  courteous 
terms,  the  surrender  of  her  treasures.  She  exposed  to 
his  view  many  vessels  of  gold,  of  great  size,  weight, 
and  beauty  ;  vessels  of  which  the  soldier  knew  neither 
the  use  nor  the  name.  "  These,"  she  said,  "  are  the 
property  of  the  Apostle  St.  Peter.  Take  them,  if  you 
dare,  and  answer  for  your  act  to  God.  A  defenceless 
woman,  I  cannot  protect  them  from  your  violence  ;  my 
soul,  therefore,  is  free  from  sin."  The  soldier  stood 
awe-struck.  A  message  was  sent  to  Alaric,  and  orders 
were  instantly  despatched  that  the  virgin  and  her  holy 
treasures  should  be  safely  conducted  to  the  Church  of 
the  Apostle.  The  procession  (for  the  virgin's  dwelling 
was  far  distant  from  the  Church)  was  led  through  the 
long  and  wondering  streets.  The  people  broke  out 
into  hymns  of  adoration,  and  amid  the  tumult  of  dis- 
order and  ruin,  the  tranquil  pomp  pursued  its  course ; 
the  name  of  Christ  rose  swelling  above  the  wild  disso- 
nance of  the  captured  city.  Even  more  lawless  pas- 
sions yielded  to  the  holy  control.  In  the  p^^y^  ^ 
loathsome  scenes  of  violation,  the  chastity  of female8- 
Christian  virgins  alone  —  at  least,  in  some  instances  — 
found  respect  from  the  lustful  barbarian.1  There  is 

IDemetrias  escaped,  according  to  St.  Jerome.  Dudum  inter  barbaras 
tremuisti  manus;  aviae  et  matris  sinu  et  palliis  tegebaris.  Vidisti  te  capti- 
vam,  et  pudicitiam  tuam  non  tuae  potestatis :  horruisti  truces  hostium  vul- 
tus:  raptas  virgines  Dei  gemitu  tacite  conspexisti.  Hieronym.  Epist.  8 
Compare  Augustin.  de  Civ.  Dei,  i.  16. 


158  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

an  instance  of  a  beautiful  virgin  who  thus  preserved 
her  honor.  Indignant  at  her  resistance,  the  young 
soldier  into  whose  power  she  had  fallen,  drew  his  sword 
and  slightly  wounded  her.  Though  bleeding,  she 
calmly  held  out  her  neck  to  the  stroke  of  death. 
The  soldier,  though  an  Arian,  observes  the  Catholic 
writer,  could  not  but  admire  her  fidelity  to  Christ  her 
spouse.  He  led  her  to  the  Church,  and,  with  a  gift  of 
six  pounds  of  gold,  surrendered  her  to  those  who  were 
on  guard  over  the  sanctuary.1  Marcella,  the  Mend  of 
Jerome,  did  not  escape  so  easily  the  only  dangers  to 
which,  on  account  of  her  age,  she  was  exposed.  As 
he  had  heard  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  scene,  it  was 
not  till  she  had  been  beaten  and  scourged,2  to  compel 
her  to  reveal  her  secret  treasures,  treasures  long  before 
expended  in  charity,  that  her  admirable  courage  and 
patience  enforced  the  respect  of  the  spoiler,  and  in- 
duced him  to  lead  her  to  the  asylum  of  the  Church 
of  St.  Paul.3 

1  Sozomen,  H.  E.  ix.  10. 

8  Csesam  t'ustibus  flagellisque,  aiunt  te  non  sensisse  tonnenta.  Hieronym. 
Epist.  loc.  cit. 

8  The  most  extraordinary  passage  relating  to  the  sack  of  Rome  is  in  St. 
Jerome's  next  letter.  All  the  horrors  on  which  he  has  dwelt,  —  the  capture 
of  Rome,  the  massacre,  rape,  pillage,  and  conflagration,  —  are  not  merely 
mitigated,  but  amply  compensated  to  Rome  and  to  the  world  by  the  profes- 
sion of  virginity  made  by  Demetrias.  It  was  as  great  a  triumph  as  the 
discomfiture  of  the  Gothic  army  would  have  been.  We  ran  neither  under- 
stand Jerome  nor  his  age  without  considering  tin-.-  strange  sentences. 
Her  vows  of  chastity  were  against  the  wishes  of  her  whole  family;  the 
greater,  therefore,  their  merit.  Hence  "  invenisse  earn  quod  pra^taret  gen- 
eri,  quod  Romance  vrbu  cineres  mitigarel."  After  de-c-ribin^  the  rejoicing 
of  Africa,  he  proceeds:  Tune  lugubres  vestes  Italia  mutavit,  et  semiruta 
ttrbit  Ronee  mcutia,  prislinum  in  parte  rtceperefulyortm,  projntium  tibi  ex- 
istimnntes  Dt urn,  tic  alumna  conterwme  perftcta.  I'utaiv-  extinctam  Go- 
thornm  manum,  et  colluviem  perfugarum  et  servorum.  Domini  desuper 
intonantis  tulmine  cecidisse.  Non  sic  post  Trebiam,  Thra.-ymenum,  et 
Cannae,  in  quibus  locis  Romanorum  exercituum  ca?sa  sunt  millia,  Marcelli 


CHAP.  I.  INNOCENT  ABSENT  FROM  ROME.  159 

Innocent  was  happily  absent  from  Rome  during  the 
last  siege  and  sack  of  the  citv.     After  the  innocent 

i  />    A  i      •      /»  i     /»  i  n      absent  from 

second  retreat  of  Alaric  from  before  the  walls,  Rome, 
he  had  accompanied  a  deputation  to  Ravenna,  to  seek, 
and  seek  in  vain,  from  the  powerless  Emperor,  some 
protection  for  the  capital.  He  did  not  return,  and  the 
fate  of  the  citv  was  left  to  the  resolutions  of  A.D.  409. 
the  Senate.  He  thus  escaped  the  horrors  of  that  fatal 
night,  and  the  three  days'  pillage  of  the  city.  If  his 
presence  did  not  contribute  to  the  comparative  security 
of  the  Christians,  neither  did  his  holy  person  endure 
the  peril  of  exposure  to  insult,  or  the  blind  and  undis- 
criminating  fury  of  a  heathen  soldiery.  Innocent  re- 
turned to  a  city,  if  in  some  parts  ruined  and  desolate, 
now  entirely  Christian  ;  the  ancient  religion  was  buried 
under  the  ruins.  Many  of  the  noblest  families  of  Rome 
were  reduced  to  slavery  by  the  Goths  ;  some  had  antici- 
pated the  capture  of  the  city  by  a  shameful  flight : 
many  more  abandoned  forever  their  doomed  and  hope- 
less country.  Alaric  and  his  host,  satiated  with  three 
days'  plunder,  at  the  end  of  six  days  broke  up  from 
Rome  to  ravage  the  rich  and  defenceless  cities  of  south- 
ern Italy.  The  estates,  which  had  so  long  maintained 
the  enormous  luxury  of  the  Roman  patricians,  were 

primum  apnd  Nolam  praelio,  se  populus  Romanus  erexit,  &c.  &c.  Jerome 
has  some  notion  that  he  is  surpassing  Tully  and  Demosthenes,  whose  elo- 
quence would  be  unequal  to  this  wonderful  event.  Compare  with  this  let- 
ter the  Epistle  addressed  to  the  same  Demetrias,  there  is  little  doubt,  by  no 
less  a  person  than  the  heresiarch  Pelagius.  Pelagius,  in  the  spirit  of  his 
age,  is  an  admirer  of  virginity.  But  throughout  the  Epistle  there  is  a  sin- 
gular calni7ies.«  a.*  well  as  elegance  of  style,  which  forcibly  contrasts  with 
the  passionate  hyperboles  of  Jerome.  Pelagins,  too,  alludes  to  the  sack  of 
Rome,  and  urges  it  as  an  image  of  the  last  day.  Eadem  omnibus  imago 
mortis,  nisi  quia  magis  earn  timebant  illi,  quibus  fuerat  vita  jucundior.  Si 
ita  mortales  timemus  hostes,  et  humanam  manum,  cum  clangore  terribili 
tuba  intonare  de  caelo  cseperit,  &c.  In  Oper.  Hieronym.  v.  p.  29. 


160  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

ravaged  or  confiscated :  whole  families  swept  away  into 
bondage.  Without  the  city,  as  within,  almost  all  that 
remained  of  eminent  and  famous  names,  the  ancestral 
houses,  which  kept  up  the  tradition  of  the  glory  of  the 
republic,  or  the  wealth  of  the  Empire,  sank  into  ob- 
scurity or  total  oblivion.  The  fugitives  from  Rome 
were  found  in  all  parts  of  the  world,1  and  among  these 
no  doubt  were  almost  all  the  more  distinguished  hea- 
thens,2 who,  no  longer  combining  into  a  powerful 
party,  no  longer  held  together  by  the  presence  of  the 
old  ancestral  temples,  or  by  the  household  gods  of  their 
race  and  family,  reduced  to  poor  and  insignificant  out- 
Dispersion  of  casts  from  descendants  and  representatives  of 
the  noblest  houses  in  Rome,  gradually  melted 
into  the  general  Christian  population*  of  the  empire. 
Those,  whom  Jerome  beheld  at  Bethlehem,  were  doubt- 
less Christians  ;  but  the  whole  coasts,  not  only  of  Italy 
and  its  islands,  of  Africa,  Egypt,  and  the  East,  swarmed 
with  these  unfortunate  exiles.3  Cartilage  was  full  of 
those  who,  to  the  great  indignation  of  Augustine,  not- 
withstanding this  visible  sign  of  Almighty  wrath, 
crowded  the  theatres,  and  raised  turbulent  factions  con- 
cerning rival  actors  ;  they  carried  with  them  no  doubt, 
and  readily  promulgated  that  hostile  sentiment  towards 
Christianity,  which  attributed  all  the  calamities  of  the 

1  Nulla  est  regio,  quse  non  exules  Romanes  habeat.  —  Hieronym.  Epist 
xcviii. 

2  Compare  Prefat.  ad  Ezekiel. 

8  Honorius,  in  the  mean  time,  was  still  issuing  sanguinary  edicts  against 
heretics.  Oraculo  penitus  remote,  quo  ad  ritus  suo«  turret k-.-v  superstitionis 
obrepserant,  sciant  omnes  sanctae  legis  inimici,  plectendos  se  po?n&  et  pro- 
scriptionis  et  sanguinis,  si  ultra  convenire  per  publicum  excrruiKhi  sceleris 
BUI  temeritate  tentaverint.  To  this  law,  addressed  to  Heraclian,  count  of 
Africa,  (Ccd.  Theodos.  c.  51,  de  Hseret.)  Baronius  ascribes  the  speedy  de- 
liverance of  the  city  from  Alaric,  so  highlv  was  it  approved  by  God!  Sub 
Ann.  410. 


CHAP.  I.  RESTORATION  OF  ROME.  161 

times,  consummated  in  the  sack  of  Rome,  to  the  new 
religion.  It  was  this  last  desperate  remonstrance  of 
paganism  which  called  forth  Augustine's  City  of  God, 
and  the  brief  and  more  lively  perhaps,  but  meagre  and 
superficial  work  of  Orosius.  Babylon  has  fallen,  and 
fallen  forever ;  the  City  of  God,  at  least  the  centre 
and  stronghold  of  the  City  of  God,  is  in  Christian 
Rome. 

Nor  did  Innocent  return  to  rule  over  a  desert.  The 
wonder,  which  is  expressed  at  the  rapid  res-  Restoration 
toration  of  Rome,  shows  that  the  general  con-  of 
sternation  and  awe,  at  the  tidings  of  the  capture,  had 
greatly  exaggerated  the  amount  both  of  damage  and 
of  depopulation.  Some  of  the  palaces  of  the  nobles, 
who  had  fled  from  the  city,  or  perished  in  the  siege, 
may  have  remained  in  ruins  ;  above  all  the  temples, 
now  without  funds  to  repair  them  from  their  confiscated 
estates,  from  the  alienated  government,  or  from  the 
munificence  of  wealthy  worshippers,  would  be  left  ex- 
posed to  every  casual  injury,  and  fall  into  irremediable 
dilapidation,  unless  seized  and  appropriated  to  its  own 
uses  by  the  triumphant  faith.  Now  probably  began  the 
slow  conversion  of  the  heathen  fanes  into  Christian 
churches.1  It  took  many  more  sieges,  many  more 
irruptions  of  barbaric  conquerors,  to  destroy  the 
works  of  centuries  in  the  capital  of  the  world's  wealth 
and  power.  If  deserted  temples  were  left  to  decay, 
churches  rose  ;  palaces  found  new  lords  ;  the  humbler 
buildings,  which  are  for  the  most  part  the  prey  of  ruin 
and  conflagration,  are  speedily  repaired ;  it  is  hardly 

i  In  Rome  this  was  rare,  till  the  late  conversion  of  the  Pantheon  into  a 
Christian  church.  Few  churches  stand  even  on  the  sites  of  ancient  temples. 
The  Basilica  seems  to  have  been  preferred  for  Christian  worship. 

VOL.   I.  11 


162  LATFNT  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

less  labor  to  demolish  than  to  build  solid,  massy  and 
substantial  habitations ;  and  fire,  which  probably  did 
not  rage  to  any  great  extent,  was  the  only  destructive 
agent  which,  during  Alaric's  occupation,  endangered 
the  grandeur  or  majesty  of  the  city. 

If  Christian  Rome  rose  thus  out  of  the  ruin  of  the 
Greatness  pagan  city,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  rose  in  pro- 
of BUhop.  portionate  grandeur  above  the  wreck  of  the 
old  institutions  and  scattered  society.  Saved,  as 
doubtless  it  seemed,  by  the  especial  protection  of 
God  from  all  participation,  even  from  the  sight  of 
this  tremendous,  this  ignominious  disaster,  according 
to  the  phrase  of  the  times,  as  Lot  out  of  the  fires 
of  Sodom,1  he  alone  could  lift  up  his  head,  if  with 
A.D.  «i.  sorrow  without  shame.  Honorius  hid  him- 
self in  Ravenna,  nor  did  the  Emperor  ever  again, 
for  any  long  time,  make  his  residence  at  Rome. 
With  the  religion  expired  all  the  venerable  titles  of 
the  religion,  the  Great  High  Priests  and  Flamens, 
the  Auspices  and  Augurs.  On  the  Pontifical  throne 
sat  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  awaiting  the  time  when 
he  should  ascend  also  the  Imperial  throne ;  or,  at 
least,  if  without  the  name,  possess  the  substance  of 
the  Imperial  power,  and  stand  almost  as  much  above 
the  shadowy  form  of  the  old  republican  dignities, 
which  still  retained  their  titles  and  some  municipal 
authority,  as  the  Caesars  themselves.  The  capture 
of  Rome  by  Alaric  was  one  of  the  great  steps  by 
which  the  Pope  arose  to  his  plenitude  of  power. 
There  could  be  no  question  that  from  this  time  the 
greatest  man  in  Rome  was  the  Pope ;  he  alone  was 
invested  with  permanent  and  real  power ;  he  alone 

1  Orosius. 


CHAP.  I.  GREATNESS  OF  BISHOP.  163 

possessed  all  the  attributes  of  supremacy,  the  rever- 
ence, it  was  his  own  fault,  if  not  the  love  of  the 
people.  He  had  a  sacred  indefeasible  title ;  authority 
unlimited,  because  undefined ;  wealth,  which  none 
dare  to  usurp,  which  multitudes  lavishly  contributed 
to  increase  by  free-will  offerings ;  he  is,  in  one  sense, 
a  Caesar,  whose  apotheosis  has  taken  place  in  his  life- 
time, environed  by  his  Praetorian  guards,  his  eccle- 
siastics, on  whose  fidelity  and  obedience  he  may,  when 
once  seated  on  the  throne,  implicitly  rely ;  whose 
edicts  are  gradually  received  as  law;  and  who  has 
his  spiritual  Praetors  and  Proconsuls  in  almost  every 
part  of  Western  Christendom. 


164  LATIN  CHEISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 


CHAPTER  II. 

PELAGIANISM. 

THE  Pelagian  question  agitated  the  West  during  the 
peiaKim  later  years  of  Innocent's  pontificate.  This 
controversy.  j^  ^e&n  ^  great  interminable  controversy 

of  Latin,  of  more  than  Latin,  of  all  Western  Chris- 
tianity. The  nature  of  the  Godhead  and  of  the 
Christ  was  the  problem  of  the  speculative  East : 
that  of  man,  his  state  after  the  fall,  the  freedom 
or  bondage  of  his  will,  the  motive  principle  of  his 
actions,  that  of  the  more  active  West.  The  East 
might  seem  to  dismiss  this  whole  dispute  with  almost 
contemptuous  indifference.  Though  Pelagius  himself, 
and  his  follower  Celestius,  visited  Palestine  and  ob- 
tained the  suffrages  of  a  provincial  council  in  their 
favor;  though  from  his  cell  near  Bethlehem,  Jerome 
mingled  in  the  fray  with  all  his  native  violence, — 
there  the  controversy  died  rapidly  away,  leaving  hard- 
ly a  record  in  Grecian  theology,  none  whatever  in 
Greek  ecclesiastical  history.1 

So  completely,  however,  throughout  the  Roman 
peiagiuB.  world  is  Christianity  now  an  important  part 
of  human  affairs,  as  to  become  a  means  of  intercourse 
and  communication  between  the  remotest  provinces. 

1  Walch  has  observed,  that  none  of  the  Greek  historians,  neither  Socra- 
tes, Sozomen  nor  Theodoret  notice  the  Pelagian  controversy.  Ketzer- 
Geschichte,  iv.  p.  531. 


CHAP.  II.  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.  165 

On  the  one  hand  new,  and,  as  they  are  esteemed, 
heretical  opinions  are  propagated,  usually  by  their 
authors  or  by  their  partisans,  from  the  most  distant 
quarters,  and  so  spread  throughout  Christendom ;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Christian  world  is  leagued  together 
in  every  part  to  suppress  these  proscribed  opinions. 
A  Briton,  Pelagius,  by  some  accounts  two  Britons, 
Pelagius  and  Celestius,  leave  their  home  at  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  known  earth,  perhaps  the  borders  of 
Wales,  the  uttermost  part  of  Britain,  to  disturb  the 
whole  Christian  world.  Pelagius  is  said  to  have  been 
a  monk,  and  though  no  doubt  bound  by  vows  of  celi- 
bacy, yet  was  under  the  discipline  of  no  community. 
He  arrives  in  Rome,  from  Rome  he  passes  to  Africa, 
from  Africa  to  Palestine.  Everywhere  he  preaches 
his  doctrines,  obtains  proselytes,  or  is  opposed  by  in- 
flexible adversaries.  The  fervid  religion  of  the  Afri- 
can Churches  repudiated  with  one  voice  the  colder 
and  more  philosophic  reasonings  of  Pelagius : l  they 
submitted  to  the  ascendency  of  Augustine,  and  threw 
themselves  into  his  views  with  all  their  unextinguish- 
able  ardor. 

But  in  the  East  the  glowing  writings  of  Augustine 
were  not  understood,  probably  not  known ; 2  Pelagiua  in 
his  predestinarian  notions  never  seem  to  have  the  East- 
been  congenial  to  the  Christianity  of  the  Greeks.     In 
Palestine,  however,  Pelagius  was  encountered  by  two 
implacable  adversaries,  Heros  and  Lazarus,  bishops  of 

1  My  history  of  the  earlier   period  of  Christianity  entered   into    the 
general  character  of  Pelagianism,  especially  as  connected  with  the  char- 
acter and  writings  of  Augustine.    I  consider  it  at  present  chiefly  in  its 
relation  to  Latin  Christianity. — Hist,  of  Christianity,  iii.  pp.  264,  270. 

2  Except  hy  Jerome,  who,  however,  received  his  writings  irregularly  and 
with  murh  delay.  —  The  ordinary  correspondence  between  the  provinces 


166  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

Gaul.1  It  is  probable  indeed,  that  the  persecution  was 
to  be  traced  to  the  cell  of  Jerome,2  with  whose  ve- 
hement and  superstitious  temperament  his  doctrines 
clashed  as  violently  as  with  those  of  Augustine, 
councilor  Pelagius  was  arraigned  before  a  synod  of 
Diwpoiis.  fourteen  prelates,  at  Diospolis  (the  ancient 
Lydda),  and,  to  the  astonishment  and  discomfiture 
of  his  adversaries,  solemnly  acquitted  of  all  hereti- 
cal tenets.  It  is  asserted  that  the  fathers  of  Dios- 
polis were  imposed  upon  by  the  subtle  and  plausible 
dialectics  of  Pelagius.  Considering,  indeed,  that  his 
accusers,  the  Gallic  bishops  (neither  of  whom  per- 
sonally appeared),  and  his  third  adversary,  Orosius, 
the  friend  and  disciple  of  Augustine,  only  spoke  Latin, 
that  the  Palestinian  bishops  only  understood  Greek 

seems  now  to  have  been  slow  and  precarious.  Nothing,  writes  Augus- 
tine to  Jerome,  grieves  me  so  much  as  your  distance  from  me  —  "nt 
vix  possim  meas  dare,  vel  recipere  tuas  litteras,  per  intervalla  non 
dierum  non  mensium,  sed  aliquot  annorum. — August.  Epist.  xxviii. 
Were  any  of  his  works  translated  into  Greek? 

1  Orosius  too  was  in  Palestine,  it  should  seem,  in  search  of  relics.    He 
had  the  good  fortune  to  carry  off  the  body  of  the  protomartyr  St.  Stephen. 
Compare  Baronius,  sub  ann. 

2  The  letter  to  Demetrias,  in  the  works  of  St.  Jerome,  seems  admitted  to 
be  a  genuine  writing  of  Pelagius.    That  both  Pelagius  and  his  antagonist 
Jerome  should  have  addressed  an  epistle  to  the  same  Demetrias  suggests 
the  suspicion  of  some  strong  personal  rivalry.    They  were  striving,  as  it 
were,  for  the  command  of  this  distinguished  and  still  probably  wealthy 
female. 

The  whole  tenor  of  the  letter  of  Pelagius  confirms  the  position,  that  the 
opinions  of  Pelagius  had  no  connection  with  monastic  enthusiasm,  and  did 
not  arise  out  of  that  pride  "of  good  works"  which  may  belong  to  the 
consciousness  of  extraordinary  austerities.  (Compare  Neander,  Christliche 
Kirche.)  Pelagius  arrives  at  his  conclusions  by  a  calm,  it  might  seem 
cold,  philosophy.  Excepting  as  to  the  praise  of  virginity,  the  greater 
part  of  the  letter  might  have  been  written  by  an  ancient  Academic,  or  by 
a  modern  metaphysical  inquirer.  Jerome  traces  the  origin  of  Pelagianism 
to  the  Greek,  particularly  the  Stoic  philosophy.  He  quotes  Tertullian's 
saying,  Philosophi,  patriarch*  haretioorum.  —  Hieronym  Epist  ad  Ctesi- 
phont. 


CHAP.  H.  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.  167 

(perhaps  imperfectly  any  language  but  their  own  ver- 
nacular Syrian),  and  that  Pelagius  had  the  command 
of  both  languages ;  that  these  questions,  which  de- 
manded the  most  exquisite  nicety  of  expression  and 
the  strictest  accuracy  of  definition,  must  have  been 
carried  on  by  the  clumsy  means  of  interpreters,  —  the 
council  of  Diospolis,  to  the  dispassionate  inquirer,  can- 
not cariy  much  weight.  The  usual  consequences  of 
religious  controversies  in  those  days,  and  in  those 
regions,  were  not  slow  to  appear.  Jerome  was  at- 
tacked in  his  retirement,  his  disciples  maltreated  by 
their  triumphant  adversaries.  Pelagius  himself  seems 
entirely  exempted  from  any  concurrence  in  these  law- 
less proceedings ;  but  his  fanatic  followers  (and  even 
his  calm  tenets  in  the  East  could  for  once  kindle 
fanaticism)  are  accused  of  perpetrating  every  crime, 
pillage,  murder,  conflagration,  on  the  peaceful  disci- 
ples of  Jerome,  especially  on  some  of  the  noble 
Roman  ladies  who  shared  his  solitude.1 

While  ignorance,  or  indifference,  or  chance,  or  per- 
sonal hostility  to  the  asserters  of  anti-Pelagian  opinions 

1  Innocent  Epist.  ad  Aurel.  et  ad  Johannem,  Episcop.  Hierosolym. 
These  revengeful  violences  against  Jerome  appear  to  me  better  evidence 
that  he  was  at  least  supposed  to  be  the  head  of  the  faction  opposed  to 
Pelagius,  than  the  reasons  alleged  by  P.  Daniel,  Hist,  du  Concile  de  Pales- 
tine, and  Walch,  p.  398.  The  strong  expressions  as  to  these  acts  are  from 
Innocent's  letter.  Direptiones,  csedes,  incendia,  omne  facinus  extremaB 
dementias,  generosissimae  sanctae  virgines  deploraverunt  in  locis  ecclesise 
tuae  perpetrasse  diabolum,  nomen  enim  hominis  causamque  reticuerunt.  — 
Apud  Labbe,  Concil.,  ii.  p.  1315.  If  the  odious  Pelagius  had  been  the  man, 
they  would  hardly  have  suppressed  his  name.  And  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  Jerome  suffered  only  the  natural  results  of  his  own  principles. 
In  his  third  dialogue  against  the  Pelagians  he  introduces  their  advocate  as 
scarcely  daring  to  speak  out,  lest  he  should  be  stoned :  Statiin  in  me  populo- 
rum  lapides  conjicias,  et  quern  viribus  non  potes,  voluntate  interficias.  To 
this  the  Catholic  rejoins,  Ille  haereticum  interficit,  qui  haereticum  esse 
patitur.  — Hieronym.  Oper.,  iv.  2.  p.  544. 


168  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

decided  the  question  in  the  East,  the  West  demanded 
a  more  solemn  and  authoritative  adjudication  on  this 
absorbing  controversy.  By  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Diospolis,  Africa  and  the  East  were  at  direct  issue  ; 
and  where  should  the  Africans  seek  the  arbiter,  or 
the  powerftil  defender  of  their  opinions,  but  at  Rome  ? 
Constantinople,  and  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  took  no 
interest  in  these  questions,  or  were  occupied,  especially 
the  two  former,  by  their  own  religious  and  political 
quarrels.  The  African  Church,  when  such  a  cause 
was  on  tLe  issue,  stood  not  on  her  independence.  As 
a  Western  monk,  Pelagius  was  amenable,  in  some 
degree,  to  the  patriarchal  authority  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  Both  parties  seemed  at  least  to  acquiesce  in 
the  appeal  to  Innocent :  the  event  could  not  be  doubt- 
ful in  such  an  age  and  before  the  representative  of 
Latin  Christianity. 

All  great  divergences  of  religion,  where  men  are 
OH  nof  really  religious  (and  this  seems  acknowl- 
controYerey.  edge(l  as  to  Pelagius  himself,  and  still  more 
as  to  some  of  his  semi-Pelagian  followers,  Julianus 
of  Eclana  and  the  Monastic  Cassian),  arise  from  the 
undue  dominance  of  some  principle  or  element  in  our 
religious  nature.  This  controversy  was  in  truth  the 
strife  between  two  such  innate  principles,  which  phi- 
losophy despairs  of  reconciling,  on  which  the  New 
Testament  has  not  pronounced  with  clearness  or  pre- 
cision. The  religious  sentiment,  which  ever  assumes 
to  itself  the  exclusive  name  and  authority  of  religion, 
is  not  content  without  feeling,  or  at  least  supposing 
itself  to  feel,  the  direct,  immediate  agency  of  God 
upon  the  soul  of  man.  This  seems  inseparable  from 
the  divine  Sovereignty,  even  from  Providential  gov- 


CHAP.  II.  PELAGIAN  CONTKOYEESY.  169 

eminent,  which  it  looks  like  impiety  to  limit,  and  of 
which  it  is  hard  to  conceive  the  self-limitation.1  Must 
not  God's  grace,  of  its  nature,  be  irresistible  ?  What 
can  bound  or  fetter  Omnipotence?  This  seems  the 
first  principle  admitted  in  prayer,  in  all  intercourse 
between  the  soul  of  man  and  the  Infinite :  it  is  the 
life-spring  of  religious  enthusiasm,  the  vital  energy, 
not  of  fanaticism  only,  but  of  zeal.2  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  an  equally  intuitive  consciousness  (and 
out  of  consciousness  grows  all  our  knowledge  of  these 
things)  of  the  freedom,  or  self-determining  power  of 
the  human  will.  On  this  depends  all  morality,  and 
the  sense  of  human  responsibility ;  all  conception,  ex- 
cept that  which  is  unreasoning  and  instinctive,  of  the 
divine  justice  and  mercy.  This  is  the  problem  of 
philosophy ;  the  degree  of  subservience  in  the  human 
will  to  influences  external  to  itself,  and  in  no  way 
self-originated  or  self-controlled,  and  to  its  inward 
self-determining  power.3  In  Christianity  it  involved 
not  merely  the  metaphysic  nature,  but  the  whole  bib- 
lical history  of  man ;  the  fall,  and  the  sin  inherited 
by  the  race  of  Adam ;  the  redemption  of  Christ, 
and  the  righteousness  communicated  to  mankind  by 
Christ. 

Pelagius  came  too  early  for  any  calm  consideration 
of  his  doctrines,  or  any  attempt  to  reconcile  the  diffi- 
culties which  he  suggested,  with  the  sacred  writings. 

1  The  absolute  abandonment  of  free  will  seems  the  highest  point  of  true 
devotion.    Prosper  thus  writes  of  Augustine :  — 

Et  dum  nulla  sibi  tribuit  bona,  fit  Deus  illi 
Omnia,  et  in  sancto  regnat  Sapientia  templo. 

2  Compare  this  argument  in  another  form,  Hist,  of  Christianity,  iii.  p. 
267. 

8  Edwards  on  the  Will  throughout,  which  on  this  point  coincides  with 
the  philosophy  of  Hume 


170  LATEST  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

In  his  age  the  religious  sentiment  was  at  its  height, 
and  to  the  religious  sentiment  that  system  was  true 
which  brought  the  soul  most  strongly  and  imme- 
diately under  divine  agency.  To  substitute  a  law 
for  that  direct  agency,  to  interpose  in  any  way  be- 
tween the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  spirit  of  man,  was 
impiety,  blasphemy,  a  degradation  of  God  and  of  his 
sole  sovereignty.  This  sentiment  was  at  its  height 
in  Western  Christendom.  In  no  part  had  it  grown 
to  a  passion  so  overwhelming  as  in  Africa,  in  no 
African  mind  to  such  absorbing  energy  as  in  that  of 
Augustine. 

Augustine,  after  the  death  of  Ambrose,  was  the 
St. Augus-  °ne  great  authority  in  Latin  Theology: 
from  him  was  now  anxiously  expected,  if 
it  had  not  appeared,  the  great  work  which  was  to 
silence  the  last  desperate  remonstrances  of  Paganism, 
the  City  of  God.1  His  Confessions  had  become  at 
once  the  manual  of  passionate  devotion,  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  internal  struggle  of  sin  and  grace  in  the 
soul  of  man.  Augustine  had  maintained  great  in- 
fluence at  the  court  of  Ravenna:  of  the  ministers 
of  Honorius  some  were  his  personal  friends,  others 
courted  his  correspondence.  Africa,  the  only  gran- 
ary, held  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  Italy: 
and  political  and  religious  interests  were  now  insepa- 
rably moulded  together.  But  it  was  probably  not  so 
much  either  the  authority  or  the  influence  of  Augus- 
tine, which  swayed  the  mind  of  Innocent  to  establish 
the  Augustinian  theology  as  the  theory  of  Western 
Christianity;  it  was  rather  its  full  coincidence  with 
his  own  views  of  Christian  truth. 

i  On  the  City  of  God  compare  Hist,  of  Christianity,  iii.  p.  279,  282. 


CHAP.  IT.  ST.  AUGUSTINE.  171 

Augustinianism  was  not  merely  the  expression  of 
the  universal  Christianity  of  the  age  as  administering 
to,  as  being  in  itself  the  more  full,  fervent,  continuous 
excitement  of  the  religious  sentiment,  it  was  also  closely 
allied  with  the  two  great  characteristic  tendencies  of 
Latin  Christianity. 

Latin  Christianity,  in  its  strong  sacerdotal  system,  in 
its  rigid  and  exclusive  theory  of  the  church,  Latin 

.  .   .  ,  Christianity 

at  once  admitted  and  mitigated  the  more  anti-Pelagian. 
repulsive  parts  of  the  Augustinian  theology.  Pre- 
destinarianism  itself,  to  those  at  least  within  the  pale, 
lost  much  of  its  awful  terrors.  The  Church  was  the 
predestined  assemblage  of  those  to  whom  causes. 
and  to  whom  alone,  salvation  was  possible;  the 
Church  scrupled  not  to  surrender  the  rest  of  man- 
kind to  that  inexorable  damnation  entailed  upon  the 
human  race  by  the  sin  of  their  first  parents.  As  the 
Church,  by  the  jealous  exclusion  of  all  heretics,  drew 
around  itself  a  narrower  circle;  this  startling  limita- 
tion of  the  divine  mercies  was  compensated  by  the 
great  extension  of  its  borders,  which  now  compre- 
hended all  other  baptized  Christians.  The  only  point 
in  this  theory  at  which  human  nature  uttered  a  feeble 
remonstrance1  was  the  abandonment  of  infants,  who 
never  knew  the  distinction  between  good  and  evil,  to 
eternal  fires.  The  heart  of  Augustine  wrung  from 
his  reluctant  reason,  which  trembled  at  its  own  in- 


1  Julianus  of  Eclana  put  well  the  insuperable  difficulty  -which  has  con- 
stantly revolted  the  human  mind,  when  not  under  the  spell  of  some  ab- 
sorbing religious  excitement,  against  the  extreme  theory  of  Augustine  and 
of  Calvin.  Deus,  ais,  ipse  qui  commendat  caritatem  suam  in  nobis,  qui 
dilexit  nos,  et  filio  suo  non  pepercit,  sed  pro  nobis  ilium  tradidit,  ipse  sic 
judicat,  ipse  est  nascentium  persecutor,  ipse  pro  mala  voluntate  seternia 
ignibus  parvulos  tradit,  quos  nee  bonam  nee  inalain  voluntatem  scit  habera 


172  LATIN  CHKISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

consistency,  a  milder  damnation  in  their  favor.  But 
some  of  his  more  remorseless  disciples  disclaimed  the 
illogical  softness  of  their  master.1 

Through  the  Church  alone,  and  so  through  the 
Sacerdotal  hierarchy  alone,  man  could  be  secure  of  that 
direct  agency  of  God  upon  his  soul,  after 
which  it  yearned  with  irrepressible  solicitude.  The 
will  of  man  surrendered  itself  to  the  clergy,  for  on 
them  depended  its  slavery  or  its  emancipation,  as  far 
as  it  was  capable  of  emancipation.  In  the  clergy, 
divine  grace,  the  patrimony  of  the  Church,  was  vested, 
and  through  them  distributed  to  mankind.  Baptism, 
usually  administered  by  them  alone,  washed  away 
original  sin ;  the  other  rites  and  sacraments  of  which 
they  were  the  exclusive  ministers,  were  still  conveying, 
and  alone  conveying,  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  the  more  or  less  passive  soul.  This  objective  and 
visible  form  as  it  were,  which  was  assumed  for  the  in- 
ward workings  of  God  upon  the  mind  and  heart,  by 
the  certitude  and  security  which  it  seemed  to  bestow, 
was  so  unspeakably  consolatory,  and  relieved,  especially 
the  less  reflective  mind,  from  so  much  doubt  and  anx- 
iety, that  mankind  was  disposed  to  hail  with  gladness 
rather  than  examine  with  jealous  suspicion  these 
claims  of  the  hierarchy.  Thus  the  Augustinian  theol- 
ogy coincided  with  the  tendencies  of  the  age  towards 
the  growth  of  the  strong  sacerdotal  system ;  and  the 
sacerdotal  system  reconciled  Christendom  with  the 

potuisse.—  Apud  Auguatin.  Oper.  Imperf.  i.  48.  Augustine  struggles 
in  vain  to  elude  the  difficulty.  Julianas  as  well  as  Pelagius  himself 
strenuously  asserted  the  necessity  of  infant  baptism,  not  however  ai 
giving  remission  of  sins,  but  as  admitting  to  Christian  privileges  and 
blessings. 
1  Compare  Hist,  of  Christ.,  iii.  note,  and  quotation  from  Fulgentius. 


CHAP  H.  SACERDOTAL  SYSTEM.  173 

Augustinian  theology.  But  the  invariable  progress 
of  the  human  mind,  as  to  this  question,  is  in  itself  re- 
markable ;  and  necessary  for  the  full  comprehension 
of  Christian  history.  AH  established  religions  subside 
into  Pelagianism,  or  at  least  semi-Pelagianism.  The 
interposition  of  the  priest,  or  the  sacrament,  or  of  both, 
between  the  direct  agency  of  God  and  the  soul  of 
man,  for  its  own  purposes,  gradually  admits  a  growing 
freedom  of  the  will.  Conformity  to  outward  rites, 
obedience  to  orders  or  admonitions,  every  religious  act 
is  required  on  the  one  hand,  as  within  the  self-deter- 
mining power  of  the  will,  and  is  in  itself  a  more  and 
more  conscious  exertion  of  that  power.  The  sacerdo- 
tal system,  in  order  that  it  may  censure  with  more 
awfulness,  and  incite  with  more  persuasiveness,  admits 
a  greater  spontaneity  of  resistance  to  evil,  and  of  incli- 
nation to  good.  It  emancipates  to  a  certain  extent, 
that  it  may  rule  with  a  more  absolute  control.  And 
as  it  was  with  Pelagius,  so  it  is  with  his  followers.  No 
Pelagian  ever  has  or  ever  will  work  a  religious  revolu- 
tion. He  who  is  destined  for  such  a  work  must  have 
a  full  conviction  that  God  is  acting  directly,  imme- 
diately, consciously,  and  therefore  with  irresistible 
power,  upon  him  and  through  him.  It  is  because  he 
believes  himself,  and  others  believe  him  to  be  thus 
acted  upon,  that  he  has  the  burning  courage  to  under- 
take, the  indomitable  perseverance  to  maintain,  the 
inflexible  resolution  to  die  for  his  religion;  so  soon  as 
that  conviction  is  deadened,  his  power  is  gone.  Men 
no  longer  acknowledge  his  mission,  he  himself  has 
traitorously  or  timidly  abandoned  his  mission.  The 
voice  of  God  is  no  longer  speaking  in  his  heart ;  men 
no  longer  recognize  the  voice  of  God  from  his  lips. 


174  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

The  prophet,  the  inspired  teacher,  the  all  but  apostle, 
has  now  sunk  to  an  ordinary  believer.  He  who  is  not 
predestined,  who  does  not  declare,  who  does  not  be- 
lieve himself  predestined  as  the  author  of  a  great  re- 
ligious movement,  he  in  whom  God  is  not  manifestly, 
sensibly,  avowedly  working  out  his  preestablished 
designs,  will  never  be  Saint  or  Reformer. 

But  there  was  another  part  of  the  Augustinian 
The  trans-  theology,  which  has  quietly  dropped  from  it 
original  am.  in  all  its  later  revivals,  yet  in  his  day  was  an 
integral,  almost  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  system  ; 
and  falling  in,  as  it  did,  with  the  dominant  feelings  of 
Christendom,  contributed  powerfully  to  its  establish- 
ment, as  the  religion  of  the  Church.  Augustine  was 
not  content  to  assert  original  sin,  in  the  strongest  lan- 
guage, against  Pelagius,  but  did  not  scruple  to  dogma- 
tize as  to  the  mode  of  its  transmission.  This  was  by 
sexual  intercourse,1  which  he  asserts  in  arguments, 
which  the  modesty  of  our  present  manners  will  not 
permit  us  to  discuss,  would  have  been  unknown  but 
for  the  Fall ;  and  was  in  itself  essentially  evil,2  though 
an  evil  to  be  tolerated  in  the  regenerate,  for  the  pro- 
creation of  children,  themselves  to  be  regenerate.8 

*  The  whole  argument  of  the  Book  de  Concopiscentia  et  de  Nuptiis. 
Intentio  igitur  hujus  libriest  at  ...  carnalis  concupiscent iae  malum,  prop- 
ter  quod  homo  qui  per  earn  nascitnr,  trahit  originate  peccatum,  discemamua 
a  bonitate  nuptiarum. 

2  Sed  quia  sine  illo  malo  (carnalis  concnpiscentise)  fieri  non  potest  nup- 
tiarum bonum,  hoc  est  propagatio  filiorum,  ubi  ad  hujusmodi  opus  venitur, 
Becreta  quseruntur.  Hinc  est  quod  infantes  etiam,  qui  peccare  non  possunt, 
non  tamen  sine  peccati  contagione  nascuntur,  non  ex  hoc  quod  licet,  sed  ex 
hoc  quod  dedecet.  —  De  Peccat.  Origin.,  c.  xxvii.  His  standing  argument  is 
from  natural  modesty,  which  he  confounds  with  the  shame  of  conscious 
guilt. 

•The  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  it  is  explicated  br  St.  Austin,  had  two 
parents ;  one  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Encratites  and  some  other  heretics, 


CHAP.  II.         TRANSMISSION  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN.  175 

Thus  this  great  Oriental  principle  of  the  inherent 
evil  of  matter,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  course  of  our 
Christian  history,  was  the  dominant  and  fundamental 
tenet  of  Gnosticism,  lay  at  the  root  of  Arianism,  and 
will  hereafter  appear  as  the  remote  parent  of  Nestori- 
anism  :  and  this  was  the  primary  axiom  of  all  Monas- 
ticism.  and  so  became,  almost  imperceptibly,  the  first 
recognized  principle  of  all  Latin  theology.  Augus- 
tine, in  this  theory  of  the  transmission  of  sin,  betrays 
that  invincible  horror  of  the  intrinsic  evil  of  the  ma- 
terial and  corporeal,  which  had  been  infused  into  his 
mind  by  his  youthful  Manicheism.*  Most  of  the  other 
leading  tenets  of  the  Manicheans,  the  creation  of  man 
by  the  antagonistic  malignant  power,  the  unreality  of 
the  Christ,  the  whole  mystic  mythology  of  the  imagin- 
ative Orientals,  Augustine  had  rejected  with  indigna- 
tion, and  with  the  practical  wisdom  of  the  West ;  but, 
notwithstanding  all  his  concessions  on  the  dignity  of 
marriage,  he  is,  in  this  respect,  an  irreclaimable  Mani- 
chean.  Sin  and  all  sensual  indulgence,  as  it  was 
called,  all,  however  lawful,  union  between  the  sexes, 
were  convertible  terms,  or  terms  so  associated  in  human 
thought  as  to  require  some  vigor  of  mind  to  discrim- 
inate between  them.  It  was  the  vice  of  the  theology 

who  forbade  marriage,  and  supposing  it  to  be  evil,  thought  that  they  were 
warranted  to  say  it  was  the  bed  of  sin,  and  children  the  spawn  of  vipers 
and  sinners ;  and  St.  Austin  himself,  and  especially  St.  Hierome,  speaks 
some  things  of  marriage,  which  if  they  were  true,  then  marriage  were 
highly  to  be  refused,  as  being  the  increaser  of  sin  rather  than  of  children, 
and  a  semination  in  the  flesh  and  contrary  to  the  spirit;  and  such  a  thing, 
which  being  mingled  with  sin,  produces  univocal  issues ;  the  mother  and 
the  daughter  are  so  alike  that  they  are  worse  again.  —  Jer.  Taylor, 
Answer  to  a  Letter. 

1  Augustine  strongly  protests  against  the  charge  which  was  even  then 
nade  against  him  of  Manicheism.  —  De  Concup.  et  Nupt.,  lib.  ii. 


176  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  U 

of  this  period,  and  not,  perhaps,  of  this  period  alone, 
that  it  seemed  to  make  the  indulgence  of  one  passion 
almost  the  sole  unchristian  sin  ;  a  passion  which  is 
probably  strengthened  rather  than  suppressed  by  com- 
pelling the  mind  to  dwell  perpetually  upon  it.  This 
(and  on  this  the  whole  stress  was  laid  throughout  the 
controversy)  was,  the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  in- 
herited from  Adam,  which  was  not  washed  away  in 
the  sanctifying  waters  of  baptism,  but  still  clave  to  the 
material  nature  of  man,  and  was  to  be  kept  under  con- 
trol only  by  the  most  rigid  asceticism.  Celibacy  thus 
became  not  merely  a  hard  duty,  but  a  glorious  distinc- 
tion :  the  clergy,  and  those  females  who  aspired  to 
more  perfect  Christianity,  not  merely  chose  a  more 
difficult,  and  therefore,  if  successful,  a  more  noble 
career  —  but  were  raised  far  above  those  lower  mortals, 
who,  in  the  most  legitimate  and  holy  form,  that  of 
faithful  marriage,  submitted  to  be  the  parents  of  children. 

Pelagius  himself,1  so  completely  was  the  human 
mind  possessed  with  this  notion,  almost  rivalled  Augus- 
tine in  his  praises  of  virginity,  which  he  considered 
the  great  test  of  that  strength  of  free  will  which  he 
asserted  to  be  weakened  only,  if  weakened,  by  the 
fall  of  Adam. 

The  Augustinian  theology,  exactly  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  coincided  with  Latin  Christianity,  would  no 
doubt  harmonize  with  the  opinions  of  one  so  com- 
pletelv  representing  that  Christianity  as  Inno- 


417.  JMI.  27.  cent  I.  When  the  African  Churches,  in 
their  councils  at  Carthage,  and  at  Milt-vis  in  Numidia, 
addressed  the  Pontiff  on  this  momentous  subject,  the 
character,  as  well  as  the  station  of  Innocent,  might 

1  Epist.  ad  Demetriad. 


CHAP.  H.  APPEAL  TO  ROME.  177 

command  more  than  respectful  deference.  Had  they 
felt  any  jealousy  as  to  their  own  independence,  under 
the  absorbing  passion,  the  hatred  of  Pelagianism,  they 
would  have  made  any  sacrifice  to  obtain  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  letters  inform 
Innocent  that  the  Africans  had  renewed  the  unre- 
garded anathema  pronounced  against  this  wicked  error, 
especially  of  Celestius,  which  had  been  issued  five 
years  before.  They  assert  the  power  of  Innocent  to 
summon  Pelagius  to  Rome  to  answer  for  his  guilt,  and 
to  exclude  him  from  the  communion  of  the  faithful.1 
They  implore  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolic  throne,  of 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  to  complete  and  Both  parties 

.  .  A    .  appeal  to 

ratify  that  which  is  wanting  to  their  more  Rome, 
moderate  power.2  Pelagius  himself,  even  if  he  did 
not  acknowledge  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal,  en- 
deavored to  propitiate  the  favor  of  the  judge :  he  ad- 
dressed an  explanatory  letter,  and  a  profession  of  faith, 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.3 

Yet  Augustine  and  the  Africans  were  not  without 
solicitude  as  to  the  decision  of  Innocent.  Since  Pela- 
gius, they  knew,  lived  in  Rome,  undisturbed  by  the 
inquisitive  zeal  of  the  bishop,  Augustine,  in  a  private 
letter,  signed  by  himself  and  four  bishops,  informed 
the  Pope  that  some  of  these  persons  boasted  that  they 
had  won  him  to  their  cause,  or,  at  least,  to  think  less 
unfavorably  of  Pelagius.* 

1  Ant  ergo  a  tua  veneratione  accersendus.est  Eomam,  et  diligenter  intcr- 
rogandus.  — Epist.  Cone.  Milev.  Labbe,  ii.,  p.  1547. 

2  Ut  statutis  nostrae  mediocritatis,  etiam  Apostolicse  sedis  adhibeatur  auc- 
toritas,  pro  tuenda  salute  multorum  et  quorundam  etiam  perversitate  corri- 
genda. —  Epist.  Cone.  Carthag.  ad  Innocent.  Labbe,  ii.  p.  1514. 

8  Augustin.  de  Grat,  Christ.,  cap.  30.  De  Pecc.  Origin.,  17,  21,  &c. 
*Quidam  scilicet  quia  vos  tafia  persuasisse  perhibent.  —  Ibid. 

Vf\T..    T.  12 


178  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  U. 

The  answer  of  Innocent  allayed  their  fears.  He 
did  not  pass  by  the  opportunity  of  asserting,  as  an 
acknowledged  maxim,  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  the  source  of  all  episcopacy,  and  the  advantage 
of  an  appeal  to  a  tribunal,  which  might  legislate  for 
all  Christendom.1  On  the  Pelagian  question  he  places 
himself  on  the  broad,  popular,  and  unanswerable 
ground,  that  all  Christian  devotion  implies  the  assist- 
ance of  divine  grace ;  that  it  is  admitted  in  every 
response  of  the  service,  in  every  act  of  worship.  He 
pronounces  the  opinions  anathematized  by  the  African 
bishops  to  be  heretical ;  and  declares  that  the  unsound 
limb  must  be  severed  without  remorse,  lest  it  should 
infect  the  living  body.2  Africa,  and  all  those  who 
held  the  opinions  of  Augustine,  triumphed  in  what 
might  seem  the  unqualified  sentence  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  At  this  period  in  the  controversy,  j^^of 
and  before  the  arrival  of  the  letter  from  *n°°^7*' 
Pelagius,  died  Pope  Innocent  I. 

So  far  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  floated  onwards 
towards  supremacy  on  the  full  tide  of  dominant  opin- 
ion ;  his  decrees  were  so  acceptable  to  the  general  ear, 
that  the  tone  of  authority  in  which  they  began  to  be 
couched,  jarred  not  on  any  quivering  chord  of  jealousy 

1  Qni  ad  nostrum  referendum  approbastia  ease  judicium,  scientes  quid 
Apostolicae  sedi  (cum  omnes  hoc  loco  positi  ipsum  sequi  desideremus  Apos- 
tolnm)  debeatur,  a  quo  ipse  episcopatus  et  tota  auctoritas  nominis  hujua 
emersit.  — Innocent  Epist.  ad  Episc.  Afric. 

Ut  per  cunctas  orbis  totius  ecclesias,  quod  omnibus  prosit,  decernendum 
ana  esse  deposcit is.  —  Ibid. 

2  The  lines  of  Prosper,  who  has  written  a  long  poem  on  this  abstruse 
rubject,  have  been  referred  to  this  decree  of  Innocent  I.  — 

In  causam  fidei  flagrantius  Africa  nostra 
Exequeris;   tecumque  suum  jungente  vigorem 
Juris  Apostolic!  solio,  fera  viscera  belli 
Conficis,  et  lato  prosternis  limite  victos. 


CHAP.  II.  DEATH  OF  INNOCENT  I.  179 

or  suspicion.  The  secret  of  that  power  lay  in  Rome's 
complete  impregnation  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  ;  and 
this  lasted,  almost  unbroken,  till  the  Reformation.  It 
were  neither  just  nor  true  to  call  this  worldly  policy, 
or  to  suppose  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  dishonestly 
conformed,  or  bent  their  opinions  to  their  age  for  the 
sake  of  aggrandizing  their  power.  Their  sympathy 
with  the  general  mind  of  Christianity  constituted  their 
strength  ;  from  their  conscious  strength  grew  up,  no 
doubt,  their  bolder  spirit  of  domination  ;  but  they  be- 
came masters  of  the  Western  Church  by  being  the 
representative,  the  centre,  of  its  feelings  and  opinions. 
It  was  not  till  a  much  later  period  that  the  claim  to 
personal  infallibility,  to  the  sole  dictatorship  over  the 
Christianity  of  the  world,  was  either  advanced  or 
thought  necessary ;  the  present  infallibility  was  but  the 
expression  of  the  universal,  or  at  least  predominant 
sentiment  of  mankind. 

Once  at  this  period,  and  but  for  a  short  time,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  threw  himself  directly  across  the 
stream  of  religious  opinion.  Zosimus,  the  ^gi^g. 
successor  of  Innocent,  was  by  birth  a  Greek,1  417>  Mar>  18- 
and  seemed  disposed  to  treat  the  momentous  questions 
agitated  by  the  Pelagian  controversy  with  the  contempt- 
uous indifference  of  a  Greek.  Whether  from  this 
uncongeniality  of  the  Eastern  mind  with  these  debates  ; 
whether  from  the  pride  of  the  man,  which  was  flattered 
by  the  submission  of  both  these  dangerous  heresiarchs 
to  his  authority;  whether  from  an  earnest  and  well- 
intentioned,  but  mistaken  hope,  of  suppressing  what 
appeared  to  him  a  needless  dispute,  Zosimus  annulled 
at  one  blow  all  the  judgments  of  his  predecessor,  In- 

1  Anastasius  Bibliothec.,  c.  42. 


180  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

nocent ;  and  absolved  the  men,  whom  Innocent,  if  he 
had  not  branded  with  a  direct  anathema,  had  declared 
deserving  to  be  cut  off  from  the  communion  of  the 
faithful. 

The  address  of  Pelagius  to  Innocent  had  not  arrived 
in  Rome  before  the  death  of  that  prelate ;  it  was  ac- 
companied with  a  creed  elaborately  and  ostentatiously 
orthodox  on  all  the  questions  which  agitated  the  East- 
ern mind,  and  a  solemn  and  minute  repudiation  of  all 
the  heresies  relating  to  the  nature  of  the  Godhead.  It 
might  seem  almost  prophetically  intended  to  propitiate 
the  favor  of  a  Greek  Pope.  He  touched  but  briefly 
on  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  necessity  of  divine 
grace ;  rejecting,  as  Manichean,  the  doctrine,  that  sin 
was  inevitable  ;  as  a  doctrine  which  he  ascribes  to  Jo- 
vinian,  the  impeccability  of  the  Christian.1  Celestius, 
who  had  remained  some  time  in  peaceful  retirement  at 
Ephesus,  had  passed  to  Constantinople ;  from  thence 
he  is  said  to  have  been  expelled  by  the  Bishop  Acacius. 
He  now  appeared  in  Rome,  and  throwing  himself,  as  it 
were,  at  the  feet  of  the  Pontiff,  declared  that  he  was 
ready  to  submit  to  a  dispassionate  examination  and 
authoritative  judgment  on  his  tenets. 

A  solemn  hearing  was  appointed  in  the  Basilica  of 
St.  Clement.  Celestius  was  listened  to  with  favor  ;  if 
Peiagiua  tne  positive  sentence  was  delayed,  his  accusers 
decdia^destlu9  Heros  and  Lazarus,  the  Gallic  bishops,  were 
orthodox.  denounced  in  the  strongest  terms  to  the  Afri- 

1  The  creed  apud  Baronium  —  sub  ann.  417  —  Liberum  sic  esse  confite- 
mur  arbitrium,  ut  dicamus  nos  semper  Dei  indigere  auxilio,  et  tain  illos 
en-are  qui  cum  Manicheis  dicunt  hominem  peccatuni  vitare  non  posse, 
quain  illos  qui  cum  Joviniano  asserunt,  hominem  non  posse  peccare ;  uter- 
que  eniin  tollit  libertatem  arbitrii.  —  Was  the  first  clause  aimed  at  Augus- 
tine and  the  Africans  ? 


CHAP.  H.  TRIAL  OF  CELESTIUS.  181 

can  Council  as  vagabond,  turbulent,  and  intriguing 
prelates,  who  had  either  abdicated  or  abandoned  their 
sees,  and  travelled  about  sowing  strife  and  calumny 
wherever  they  went.1  The  African  prelates  were 
summoned  within  a  short  period  to  make  good  their 
charges  against  Celestius,  who  in  this  first  investigation 
had  appeared  unimpeachable.2  Zosimus  went  further  : 
he  had  warned  Celestius  and  his  accusers  alike  to  ab- 
stain from  these  idle  questions  and  unedifying  disputes, 
the  offspring  of  vain  curiosity,  and  of  the  desire  for 
the  display  of  eloquence  on  subjects  unrevealed.3  Such 
to  Zosimus  appeared  these  questions,  which  had 
wrought  Africa  into  a  frenzy  of  zeal  and  distracted  the 
whole  West.  The  trial  of  Celestius  was  followed  by 
the  public  recital  of  a  letter  from  Praylas,  Sept.  21. 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  asserting  in  the  most  unqualified 
terms  the  orthodoxy  of  Pelagius.  It  was  read  with 
joy,  with  admiration,  almost  with  tears  of  delight. 
"  Would,"  writes  Zosimus  to  the  African  bishops, 
"  that  one  of  you  had  been  present  at  the  edifying 
scene.  That  such  a  man  should  be  impeached,  and 
impeached  by  a  Heros  and  a  Lazarus  !  There  was 
no  point  in  which  the  grace  and  assistance  of  God 

1  Zosimus  Aurelio  et  univ.  Episcop.  Africse.  — Apud  Labbe,  ii.,  1559. 
Heros,  according  to  Zosimus,  had  been  Bishop  of  Aries,  Lazarus  of  Aix. 

Their  rise  was  owing  entirely  to  the  tyrant  (probably  the  usurper  Constan- 
tine) ;  it  was  accompanied  with  tumult  and  bloodshed,  persecution  of  the 
priesthood  who  opposed  them.  With  Constantino  they  fell,  driven  out  by 
the  execrations  of  the  people,  and  abdicating  their  sees.  —  So  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  S.  Prosper  gives  a  high  character  of  both.  —  S.  Prosper,  Chron. 

2  Innotescere  sanctitati  vestrae  super  absoluta  Crelestii  fide  nostrum  exa- 
men.  —  Ib. 

8  Admoneri,  has  tendiculas  qusestionum,  et  inepta  certamina  quse  non  edi- 
ficant,  sed  magis  destruunt,  ex  ilia  curiositatis  contagione  profluere,  dum 
unusquisque  ingenio  suo  et  intemperanti  eloquentia  supra  scripta  abutitur. 
-Ibid. 


182  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

could  be  asserted  by  a  faithful  Christian,  which  was 
not  fully  acknowledged  by  them."  1 

But  the  authority,  which  was  received  with  deferen- 
tial homage,  so  long  as  it  concurred  with  their  own 
views,  lost  its  magic  directly  that  it  espoused  the 
opposite  cause.  The  African  bishops  inflexibly  ad- 
hered to  the  condemnation  of  Pelagius,  of  Celestius, 
and  their  doctrines.  Carthage  obstinately  refused  to 
yield  to  Rome  ;  it  appealed  to  the  sentence  of  Inno- 
cent, and  disdainfully  rejected  the  annulling  power  of 
Zosimus.  Augustine,  indeed,  continued  to  speak  with 
conciliating  mildness  of  the  Roman  Prelate  ;  but  he 
let  fell  some  alarming  and  significant  expressions  as  to 
the  prevarication  of  the  whole  Roman  clergy. 

To  the  long  representation  addressed  to  him  by  the 
Councilor  Council  of  Carthage,  Zosimus  replied  in  a 
Match,  4is.  haughty  tone,  asserting  that,  according  to  the 
tradition,  no  one  might  dare  to  dispute  the  judgment 
of  the  Apostolic  See.  But  the  close  of  the  epistle 
betrayed  his  embarrassment.  Whether  his  natural 
sagacity  had  discovered  that  he  had  rashly  attempted 
to  stem  the  torrent  of  opinion  ;  his  brotherly  love  for 
the  African  Churches  would  induce  him  to  communi- 
cate all  his  determinations  to  them,  in  order  that  they 
might  act  together  for  the  common  good  of  Christen- 
dom. He  had  stayed,  therefore,  all  further  proceed- 
ings in  the  affair  of  Celestius.3 

It  was  time  for  Zosimus  to  retrace  his  precipitate 
App«ai  to  course.  Augustine  and  the  African  bishops 
8ammonecl  to  their  aid  a  more  powerful 


1  Tales  enim  absolute  fidei  infamari  posse?  Est  ne  ullus  locus  in  quo 
Dei  gratia  vel  adjutorium  pnetermissum  sit?  Zosim.  ad  Episcop.  Atric. 
Labbe,  ii.  p.  1561. 

*  Zosim.  ad  Episcop.  Africa?. 


CHAP.  H.  APPEAL  TO  THE  EMPEKOR.  183 

ally  than  even  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  While  the  Pope 
either  still  adhered  to  the  cause  of  Pelagius,  or  but  be- 
gan to  vacillate,  an  Imperial  edict  was  issued  from  the 
court  of  Ravenna,  peremptorily  deciding  on  this  ab- 
struse question  of  theology.1  This  law  was  issued  be- 
fore the  final  sitting  of  the  Council  of  Carthage,  in 
which,  on  the  authority  of  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
three  bishops,  eight  canons  were  passed,  condemnatory 
of  Pelagianism.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  law 
was  obtained  by  the  influence  of  the  African  bishops 
with  the  Emperor  or  his  ministers  ;  there  is  great  like- 
lihood by  the  personal  authority  of  Augustine  with 
the  Count  Valerius.  Italy,  indeed,  could  hardly  re- 
fuse to  listen  to  the  voice  of  Africa.  This  appeal  to 
the  civil  magistrate  is  but  another  instance,  that  the 
ecclesiastical  power  has  no  scruple  in  employing  in  its 
own  favor  those  arms  of  which  it  deprecates  the  use, 
the  employment  of  which  it  treats  as  impious  usurpa- 
tion, when  put  forth  against  it.  By  this  law  it  became 
a  crime  against  the  state,  to  be  visited  with  civil  penal- 
ties, to  assert  that  Adam  was  born  liable  to  death.2 
The  dangerous  heresiarchs  were  condemned  by  name, 
and  without  hearing  or  trial,  to  banishment  from  Rome.3 
Informers  were  invited  or  commanded  to  apprehend 


1  The  law  is  dated  April  30,  A.D.  418.    The  final  council  was  held  early 
in  May. 

2  Hi  parent!  cunctorum  Deo  ....  tarn  trucem  inclementiam  ssevae  vol- 
untatis  assignant   .  .  .  .  ut  mortem  praemitteret  nascituro  (Adamo,  sc.}, 
non  hanc  insidiis  vetiti  fluxisse  peccati,  sed  exegisse  penitus  legem  immu- 
tabilis  constituti.  —  Rescript.  Honor,  et  Theodos.  apud  Augustin.    Oper. 
x.,  Append.,  p.  106. 

8  Hos  ergo  repertos  ubicunque  de  hoc  tarn  nefando  scelere  conferentes  a 
quibuscunque  jubemus  corripi,  deductosque  ad  audientiam  publicam  pno- 
miscue  ab  omnibus  accusari  .  .  .  ipsis  inexorati  exilii  deportation!  damna- 
tis.  —  Ibid. 


184  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

and  drag  before  the  tribunals,  and  to  accuse  the  main- 
tainers  of  these  wicked  doctrines.  In  the  order  issued 
by  the  Praetorian  Prefects  of  Italy  and  the  East,  to 
carry  this  law  into  effect,  not  merely  were  the  he- 
resiarchs  banished,  but  their  accomplices  condemned 
to  the  confiscation  of  their  estates,  and  to  perpetual 
exile.1 

Zosimus  threw  off  the  dangerous  tenderness  with 
zosimus  which  he  had  hitherto  treated  Celestius  and 
retracts.  n|s  party.  Already,  before  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  Imperial  edict,  he  had  demanded  his  une- 
quivocal condemnation  of  certain  errors,  charged 
against  him  by  Paulinus,  a  Carthaginian  deacon,  who 
had  been  sent  to  Rome  to  represent  the  African  opin- 
ions. Celestius  was  now  again  summoned  to  render 
an  account  of  his  tenets ;  under  the  ban  of  the  Impe- 
rial law,  an  object  of  hatred  to  the  populace,  certain 
that  the  Pope  had  withdrawn  his  protection,  of  course 
he  dared  not  appear:  he  had  quietly  retired  from 
Rome.2  Zosimus  proceeded  to  condemn  the  faith,  to 
anathematize  the  doctrines  of  Pelagius  and  Celestius, 
to  excommunicate  them  from  the  body  of  the  faithful, 
if  they  did  not  renounce  and  abjure  the  venomous 
tenets  of  their  impious  and  abominable  sect.  Nor  was 
this  all :  the  Bishop  of  Rome  addressed  a  circular  let- 
ter to  all  the  bishops  of  Christendom,  condemning  the 
doctrines  of  Pelagius.  To  this  anathema  they  were 
expected  to  subscribe.8 

Eighteen  bishops  alone,  of  those  who  took  this  letter 

1  The  convicted  heretic,  by  the  edict  of  Palladius,  was  to  be  facultatum 
publicatione  nudatus. 

2  Augustin.  de  Pecc.  Origin.,  c.  6.    The  gratulatory  letter  of  Paulinua 
himself  on  the  condemnation  of  Celestius,  in  Baronius,  sub  ann.  418. 

8  Augustin.  de  Pecc.  Orig.,  3,  4 ;  in  Julian,  1,  c.  4.    Prosper  in  Chronic. 


CHAP.  H.  SEMI-PELAGIANISM.  185 

into  consideration,  refused  to  condemn  their  E  hteen 
fellow    Christians    unheard.      They    turned recusante- 
against   Zosimus   his   own    language    to   the  African 
bishops,  in  which  he  had  accused  their  precipitancy 
and  injustice  in  condemning  these  very  men  without 
process  or  trial.     They  appealed  to  a  General  Council. 

Of  these  eighteen,  the  most  distinguished  was  Juli- 
anus,  Bishop  of  Eclana,  in  Campania.  His  Julianug  ^ 
opinions  did  not  altogether  agree  with  those  Ecl*na' 
of  Pelagius  and  Celestius ; l  he  was  the  founder  of 
what  has  been  called  Semi-Pelagianism.  Julianus 
from  his  birth,  his  character,  and  the  events  of  Ins  life, 
was  a  remarkable  man.  He  was  of  a  noble  family, 
the  son  of  a  bishop,  Memor,  for  whom  Augustine  en- 
tertained the  warmest  friendship.2  He  was  early  ad- 
mitted into  the  lower  order  of  the  clergy,  and  married 
a  virgin  of  birth  and  virtue  equal  to  his  own.  She 
was  of  the  ^Emilian  family,  daughter  of  the  Bishop 
of  Beneventum. 

The  epithalamium  of  Julianus  and  la  was  written 
by  the  holy  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola.  The  poet 
urges  upon  the  young  and  ardent  couple  not  to  break 
off  their  dangerous  nuptials,  but  after  their  marriage 
to  preserve  their  inviolate  chastity.  The  pious  bishop 
has,  indeed,  some  misgivings  as  to  the  success  of  his 
poetic  persuasions,  and  adds,  that  if  they  are  betrayed 
into  the  weakness  of  having  offspring,  he  trusts  that 
they  will  make  compensation  to  that  state,  which  they 
have  robbed  of  its  brightest  ornaments,  by  dedicating 

l  The  great  point  of  difference  was  that  Pelagius  held  Adam  to  have 
been  born  mortal ;  Julianus  admitted  that  the  sin  of  Adam  had  brought 
death  into  the  world. 

8  Augustin.  contr.  Julian.,  i.  12. 


186  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

all  their  children,  a  sacerdotal  family,  to  virginity.1 
Julianus  was  a  man  of  great  accomplishments,  well 
read  in  the  writers,  especially  the  poets  of  Italy  and 
Greece.  But  neither  his  illustrious  descent,  his  Roman 
or  his  Christian  kindred,  nor  his  talents,  nor  his  vir- 
tues, nor  his  station,  availed  in  the  least  in  this  desper- 
ate conflict  at  once  with  power  and  popular  opinion. 
There  were  now  arrayed  in  formidable  and  irresistible 
confederacy,  the  three  commanding  influences  in  West- 
ern Christendom,  the  Pope,  the  Emperor,  and  Au- 
gustine. The  Pope,  indignant  at  the  demand  for  a 
General  Council,  proceeded  to  involve  Julianus  and  the 
rest  of  the  eighteen  remonstrants  under  the  anathema 
pronounced  against  Pelagius,  and  to  depose  him  from 
his  see.  Julianus  had  but  the  unsatisfactory  consola- 
tion of  asserting  that  Zosimus  dared  not  meet  him  be- 
fore a  General  Council.  The  Emperor  was  at  first 
disposed  to  accede  to  the  demand  for  a  Council,  but 
the  influence  of  Augustine  with  the  Count  Valerius 
changed  the  impartial  judge  into  an  implacable  adver- 
sary. He  is  even  accused,  and  by  his  most  respected 
adversary  Julianus,  of  employing  every  means,  even 
those  of  corruption,  to  inflame  the  minds  of  the  power- 
fid  against  the  followers  of  Pelagius.2  A  new  Imperial 
edict  sentenced  to  exile  Julianus  and  all  the  bishops 
who  had  fallen  under  the  anathema  of  Zosimus.  A 
second  rescript  followed,  commanding  all  bishops  not 

(  1  Ut  git  in  ambobug  eoncordia  rirginitati*, 

Ant  sint  ambo  sacris  semina  rirginibna. 
Votorum  prior  hie  gndos  est,  ut  nescia  carnia 
Membra  gerant.  quod  Bi  corpore  conpruerint, 
Casta  sacerdotale  genus  rentura  propago, 
£t  domu?  Aaron  rit  tota  domua  Memoru. 

Paull.  Nolan.  Epithalamium,  circafinem. 
1  8e«  note  infra. 


CHAP.  H.      JTJLIANTJS,  PELAGIUS,  AXD  CELESTIUS.  187 

merely  to  subscribe  the  dominant  opinions  on  these 
profound  and  abstruse  topics,  but  to  condemn  their 
authors,  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  as  irreclaimable  here- 
tics, and  tliis  under  pain  of  deprivation  and  banish- 
ment. Justly  might  Julianus  taunt  his  ecclesiastical 
brethren  with  this  attempt  to  crush  their  adversaries 
by  the  civil  power.  With  shame  and  sorrow  we  hear 
from  Augustine  himself  that  fatal  axiom,  which  for 
centuries  reconciled  the  best  and  holiest  men  to  the 
guilt  of  persecution,  the  axiom  which  impiously  arrayed 
cruelty  in  the  garb  of  Christian  charity  —  that  they 
were  persecuted  in  compassion  to  their  souls;1  that 
they  ought  to  be  thankful  for  the  kind  violence,  which 
did  them  no  real  injury,  but  coerced  them  for  their 
good ;  and  that  if  for  this  end  the  secular  power  was 
called  in,  it  was  to  restrain  them  from  their  sacrilegious 
temerity.2 

Thus,   then,  on   these  men  had  fallen  the  ban  of 
ecclesiastical  and  secular  power,  and  in  the  H^  penecu- 
West,  at  least,  of  popular  opinion.3     Pela- tion' 
gius  vanishes  at  this  time  from  history ;  he  had  been 
condemned  by  a  Council  at  Antioch,  and  driven,  a 
second  Catiline  as  he  is  called  by  Jerome,  from  Jeru- 
salem :  of  his  end  nothing  is  known.     The  more  cou- 
rageous and  active  Celestius  still  kept  up  the  vain  strife. 

1  Xon  impotentiae  contra  vos  precamur  auxilium,  sed  pro  vobis  potits  ut 
ab  ausu  sacrilege  cohibeamini,  Christiana  potentise  landamus  officium.  — 
Oper.  Imperf.,  1.  ii.,  c.  14. 

2  Compare  1. 10,  where  he  says  that  Christian  powers  (he  means  the  civil 
powers)  are  bound  to  use  disciplinam  coercitionis  against  all  opponents  of 
the  Catholic  faith. 

8  Julianus,  it  appears,  objected  to  Augustine  that  all  his  authorities  were 
"Western  bishops.  This  Augustine  does  not  deny,  but  demands  whether 
the  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  his  successor,  Innocent,  is  not  enough. — 
Contr.  Julian.,  1,  c.  13.  He  quotes,  however,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  and 
Basil. 


188  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

Twice  he  returned  to  Rome  during  the  episcopacy  of 
the  successor  of  Zosimus,  and  twice  again  was  ban- 
ished. At  length,  with  Julianus,  he  took  refuge  at 
Constantinople,  where  he  obtained  a  more  favorable 
hearing  both  from  the  reigning  Emperor,  the  younger 
Theodosius,  and  from  Nestorius,  the  bishop.  But  his 
enemies  were  watchful,  and  Constantinople  refused  to 
entertain  the  condemned  heresiarch :  of  his  death  like- 
wise history  is  silent.  The  accomplished  Julianus,1 
exiled  from  his  see,  proscribed  not  merely  by  the  harsh 
edicts  of  power,  but  hunted  by  popular  detestation 
from  town  to  town,  wandered  through  Christendom, 
as  if  he  bore  a  divine  judgment  upon  him.  His  long 
and  weary  life  was  protracted  thirty  years  after  his 
exile.2  At  length  he  settled  as  teacher  of  a  school,  in 
an  obscure  town  of  Sicily.  The  last  act  of  the  pro 
scribed  heretic  was  to  sacrifice  all  he  had  to  relieve 
the  poor  in  a  grievous  famine.  Some  faithful  follower, 
it  is  said,  whether  in  zeal  for  his  tenets  or  admiration 
for  his  virtues,  inscribed  on  his  tomb,  "  Here  sleeps  in 
peace  Julianus,  the  Catholic  Bishop." 

1  The  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Julianus,  especially  those  in  the  Opus 
Imperfectum  of  Augustine,  show  great  acuteness  and  eloquence,  and  a 
facility  and  perspicuity  of  style  which  bears  no  unfavorable  comparison 
with  the  great  African  father.    His  piety  is  unimpeachable. 

2  Julianus  constantly  taunts  Augustine  with  this  appeal  to  the  passions 
of  the  rude  and  ignorant  vulgar  on  such  abstruse  subjects,  and  with  even 
>x>rse  means  of  persecuting  his  adversaries.    Cur  seditiones  Romae  conduc- 
tis  populis  excitastis  ?  Cur  de  sumptibus  pauperum  saginastis  per  totam 
poene  Africam,  equorum  greges,  quos  prosequenti  Olybrio,  tribunis  et  cen- 
turionibus  destinistis?  Cur  matronarum  oblatis  luereditatibus  potestates 
saeculi  corrupistis,  ut  hi  nos  stipula  furoris  publice  ardeat  ?  Cur  dissipastis 
Ecclesiarum  quietem?  Cur  religiosi  principis  tempora  persecutionum  im- 
pietate  maculistis?  —  Oper.  Imperfect,  iii.  74. 

Augustine  contents  himself  by  simply  denying  these  charges,  the  last 
of  which,  by  his  own  showing  and  by  the  extant  edicts,  was  too  true. 

In  another  place  Julianus  says,  Ut  erecto  cornu  dogma  populate.  —  Oper 
Imperfect.,  ii.  2. 


CHAP.  H.  SEMI-PELAGIANISM.  189 

While  the  West  in  general  bowed  before  the  com- 
manding authority  of  Augustine  ;  trembled  g^. 
and  shrunk  from  any  opinion  which  might  P"1^81"8111- 
even  seem  to  impeach  the  sovereignty  of  God ;  laid  its 
free  will  down  a  ready  sacrifice  before  divine  grace,  as 
contained  in  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  and  admin- 
istered by  the  awful  hierarchy ;  hesitated  not  to  aban- 
don the  whole  world,  external  to  the  Church,  to  that 
inevitable  hell  which  was  the  patrimony  of  all  the 
children  of  Adam  ;  Semi-Pelagianism  arose  in  another 
quarter,  and  under  different  auspices,  and  maintained 
an  obstinate  contest  for  considerably  more  than  a  cen- 
tury. This  school  grew  up  among  the  monasteries  in 
the  south  of  France.  Among  its  partisans  were  some 
of  the  most  eminent  bishops  of  that  province.  The 
most  distinguished,  if  not  the  first  founder,  of  this 
Gallic  Semi-Pelagianism  was  the  monk  Cassi-  Cassianus. 
anus.  The  birthplace  of  Cassianus  is  uncertain,  but 
if  not  Greek  or  Oriental  by  birth,  he  was  either  one  or 
the  other,  or  both,  by  education.1  His  youth  was 
passed  in  the  Eastern  monasteries,  first  in  Bethlehem, 
afterwards  in  Egypt.  Eastern  and  Egyptian  mona- 
chism,  like  its  more  remote  ancestor  in  India,  and  its 
more  immediate  parent,  the  Essenism  or  Therapeutism 
of  the  Jews,  was  anything  but  a  blind  or  humble  Pre- 
destinarianism.  It  was  the  strength  and  triumph  of 
the  human  will.  It  was  the  self-wrought  victory  over 
the  bondage  of  matter ;  the  violent  avulsion  and  stern 
estrangement  from  all  the  indulgences,  the  pursuits, 

1  Notwithstanding  the  express  words  of  Gennadius,  Cassianus  natione 
Scytha,  he  has  been  supposed  an  African.  He  is  called  Afer  in  the  list  of 
ecclesiastical  writers  by  Honorius  (Ixi.  c.  84);  an  Egyptian  (Pagi,  Basnage, 
Fabricius);  a  Latin  (Photius,  c.  197);  a  Gaul  (Card.  Norris  and  the  Bene- 
dictines, Hist.  Lit.  de  la  France). 


190  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

the  affections,  the  society  of  the  world.  The  dreamy 
and  passive  state  of  the  monk,  in  which  he  was  surren- 
dered to  spiritual  influences,  began  not  till  his  own 
determination  had  withdrawn  him  into  the  austere  and 
eremetical  solitude.  There  man  might  be  commingled, 
in  absolute  identity,  with  the  Godhead.  Every  act  of 
remorseless  asceticism  was  a  meritorious  demand  on 
the  divine  approbation.  The  divine  influence  was 
wrestled  for  and  won  by  the  resolute  and  prevailing 
votary,  not  bestowed  as  the  unsought  gift  of  God. 
Cassianus  passed  from  Egypt  to  Constantinople,  where 
he  became  the  favored  pupil  of  that  Greek  Father 
whose  writings  are  throughout  the  most  adverse  to  the 
Augustinian  system.  The  whole  theology  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  in  its  general  impression,  is  a  plain  and  practical 
appeal  to  the  free  will  of  man.  He  addresses  man  as 
invested  in  an  awful  responsibility,  but  as  self-depend- 
ent, self-determining  to  good  or  evil.  The  depravity 
against  which  he  inveighs  is  no  inherited,  inherent  cor- 
ruption, to  be  dispossessed  only  by  divine  grace,  but  a 
personal,  spontaneous,  self-originating,  and  self-main- 
tained surrender  to  evil  influences ;  to  be  broken  off 
by  a  vigorous  effort  of  religious  faith,  to  be  controlled 
by  severe  self-imposed  religious  discipline.  As  far  as 
is  consistent  with  prayer  and  devotion,  man  is  master 
of  his  own  destiny.  The  Augustinian  questions  of 
predestination,  grace,  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  even, 
in  general,  the  atonement  and  the  extent  of  its  conse- 
quences, lie  without  the  sphere  of  Chrysostom's  theol- 
ogy. Cassianus  received  at  least  the  first  holy  orders 
from  Chrysostom.  During  the  disturbances  in  Con- 
stantinople relating  to  his  deposal,  Cassianus  was  sent 
to  Rome  on  a  mission  to  Pope  Innocent  I.  To  the 


CHAP.  II.  CASSIANUS.  191 

memory  of  Chrysostom  he  preserved  the  most  fervent 
attachment.  Chrysostom  was  to  him  a  second  John 
the  Evangelist.1 

Probably  after  the  fall  of  Chrysostom,  Cassianus 
settled  at  Marseilles,  and  founded  two  mon-  CaBsianus 
asteries,  one  of  men  and  one  of  women,  in  in  GauL 
which  he  introduced  the  severe  discipline  of  the  East. 
Marseilles  was  Greek ;  it  retained  to  a  late  period  the 
character  and,  to  some  degree,  the  language  of  a 
Grecian  colony ;  no  doubt,  on  that  account,  it  was 
congenial  to  Cassianus.  But  Cassianus  became  so 
completely  master  of  Latin  as  to  write  in  that  lan- 
guage his  Monastic  Institutes,  the  austere  and  inflexi- 
ble code  followed  in  most  of  the  coenobitic  foundations 
north  of  the  Alps ;  and  it  is  chiefly  from  this  work 
that  posterity  can  collect  the  Semi-Pelagian  opin- 
ions of  its  author.2  Already,  however,  some  of  the 
faithful  partisans  of  Augustine  had  given  the  alarm 
at  this  tendency  towards  rebellion  against  the  dictator- 
ship of  their  master.  Prosper  and  Hilarius  denounced 
this  yet  more  secret  defection  of  those  who  presumed 
to  impugn  with  vain  objections  the  holy  Augustine  on 
the  grace  of  God.3  The  last  works  which  occupied 

1  Adoptatus  a  beatissimse  memorise  Joanne  in  ministerium  sacrum  atque 
oblatus  Deo  ....  Mementote  magistrorum  vestrorum  veterum  sacerdo- 
tumque  vestrorum  ....  Joannis  fide  ac  puritate  mirabilis:  Joannis  in- 
quam,  Joannis  illius  qui  vere  ad  similitudinem  Joannis  Evangelist®,  et 
discipulus  Jesu  et  Apostolus,  quasi  super  pectus  domini  semper  affectumque 
discubuit  ....  Qui  communis  mihi  ac  vobis  magister  fuit ;  cujus  discipuli 
et  institutio  sumus,  et  seqq.  —  Cassianus  de  Incarn.  c.  31. 

2  There  has  been  a  controversy  whether  Cassianus  was  a  Semi-Pelagian. 
With  his  works  before  them,  even  from  the  same  passages  of  his  works, 
grave  and  learned  men  have  argued  on  both'  sides. 

8  Gratiam  Dei,  qua  Christian!  sumus,  qui  tarn  dicere  audent  a  sanctoe 
memorise  Augustino  Episcopo  non  recte  esse  defensam,  librosque  ejus 
contra  errorem  Pelagianum  conditos  immoderatis  calumniis  impetere  non 
^uiescunt.  —  Prosper  contr.  Collatorem,  c.  1. 


192  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

Augustine  were  addressed  to  Prosper  and  Hilarius, 
in  order  to  check  this  daring  inroad,  and  to  establish 
on  irrefragable  grounds  the  predestination  of  the  saints 
and  the  gift  of  perseverance.1 

The  partisans  of  Augustine  continued  to  wage  the 
controTewy  war  ^th  all  the  burning  zeal  and  imperious 
in  Gaui.  authority  of  their  master.  A  school  arose, 
not  of  theology  alone,  but  of  poetry.  Prosper,  in  a 
long  poem,  compelled  the  reluctant  language  and  form 
of  Latin  verse  to  condemn  the  "  ungrateful,"  who  in 
their  wanton  pride  ascribed  partly  to  themselves,  not 
absolutely  to  the  grace  of  God,  the  work  of  their 
salvation.  Prosper  and  Hilarius  were  followed  by  a 
long  line  of  assertors  of  the  Augustinian  Predestina- 
rianism,  of  which  Fulgentius  was  the  most  rigid  and 
inexorable  advocate.2 

Cassianus,  on  the  other  side,  handed  down  to  a 
succession  of  more  or  less  bold  disciples  the  aversion 
to  the  extreme  views  of  Augustine.  It  is  doubtfiil 
whether  the  Vincentius,  who  espoused  his  opinions, 
was  the  celebrated  Abbot  of  Lerins,  the  author  of  the 
*  Commonitory.'  At  a  later  period  Faustus,  Bishop  of 
Riez,  brought  the  sanction  of  learning,  high  character, 
and  sanctity  to  the  same  cause. 

Semi-Pelagianism  aspired  to  hold  the  balance  be- 
tween Pelagius  and  Augustine;3  to  steer  a  safe  and 
middle  course  between  the  abysses  into  which  each,  on 

*  De  Pnedestinatione  Sanctorum  liber  ad  Prosperum  et  Hilarium  .... 
De  done  perseverantiae  liber  ad  Prosperum  et  Hilarium  secundus. 

s  Fulgentius  was  the  predecessor  of  that  modem  divine  who  is  said  to  hare 
spoken  of  the  comfortable  doctrine  of  the  eternal  damnation  of  little  children. 

*  Sed  nee  cum  haereticis  tibi,  nee  cum  Catholicis  plena  concordia  e«t  .  .  . 
tu  informe,  nescio  quid,  tertium  et  utraque  parte  inconveniens  reperisti,  quo 
nee  inimicorum  consensum  adquireres,  nee  in  nostrorum  perrnaneres. — 
Prosper,  c.  ii.  p.  117. 


CHAP.  H.  CONTROVERSY  IN  GAUL.  193 

either  side,  had  plunged  in  desperate  presumption.1 
It  emphatically  repudiated  the  heresy  of  Pelagius  in 
the  denial  of  original  sin ;  it  asserted  divine  grace, 
but  it  seemed  to  confine  divine  grace  to  the  outward 
means,  the  Scriptures  and  the  sacraments,  rather 
than  to  its  inward  and  direct  workings  on  the  soul 
itself. 

But  it  condemned  with  equal  resolution  the  system 
of  Augustine,  by  which  the  grace  of  God  was  hard- 
ened into  an  iron  necessity ;  it  reproached  him  with 
that  Manicheism  which  divided  mankind  into  two 
hard  antagonistic  masses.2 

But  of  all  religious  controversies  this  alone  had  the 
merit  of  not  growing  up  into  a  fatal  and  implacable 
schism.3  The  Semi-Pelagians,  though  condemned  in 
several  successive  councils,  were  not  cast  out  of  the 
Church,  and  did  not  therefore  form  separate  and 
hostile  communities.  This  rare  mutual  respect, 
which  now  prevailed,  is  no  doubt  to  be  attributed 
to  one  important  cause.  The  monasteries,  which 
were  held  in  such  profound  and  universal  venera- 
tion,  were  the  chief  schools  of  these  doctrines ;  some 


1  Compare  Walch,  v.  p.  56. 

2  Compare  the  letter  of  Prosper  to  Rufmus,  in  which  Augustine  is  said  to 
make  duas  humani  generis  massas,  an  error  as  bad  as  that  of  heathens  or 
Manicheans. 

8  No  question  has  been  more  disputed  in  later  days,  or  with  less  certain 
result,  than  whether  there  was  a  distinct  sect  of  Predestinarians  at  this 
period.  The  controversy  originated  in  the  publication  of  a  remarkable 
tract,  the  "  Praedestinatus,"  by  the  Jesuit  Sirmond.  The  great  object  was 
to  clear  the  memory  of  Augustine,  who  was  claimed  both  by  Jesuits  and 
Jansenists.  Such  a  sect,  if  it  existed,  would  carry  off  from  St.  Augustine 
all  the  charges  heaped  upon  Predestinarianism  at  that  time.  If  they  were 
heretics,  Augustine  was  of  unimpcached  orthodoxy,  and  therefore  could  not 
have  held  a  condemnable  Predestinarianism.  Walch  discusses  the  question 
at  length,  vol.  v. 

VOL.  i.  13 


194  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

of  the  most  austere  and  most  admired  of  these 
Coenobites  were  the  chief  assertors  of  the  free  will 
of  man.1 

1  Prosper  himself  betrays  this  enforced  respect  and  its  peculiar  source :  — • 

Nee  tibl  follacis  subrepat  imago  decoris, 
Nullum  ex  his  en-are  putes,  licet  in  Grace  vitam 
Ducant.  et  jugi  afficiant  sua  corpora  morte : 
Abstineant  opibus ;  Bint  casti ;  8intque  benign! ; 
Terrenisque  ferant  animum  super  astra  relictia; 
Si  tamen  haec  propria  rirtute  capessere  quenquam 
Posse  putant,  sitve  ut  dignus  labor  iate  juvari 
Ingenium  meruisse  aiunt  bona  vera  petentis ; 
Crescere  quo  cupiunt,  minuuotur;  proficiendo 
Deficiunt ;  surgendo  cadunt,  currendo  reoedunt ; 
Unde  etenim  rani  frustra  splendescere  quacrunt, 
Inde  obscurantur :  qnoniam  sua,  laudis  amore, 
Non  quae  aunt  Christi  quaerunt,  nee  fit  Deus  illis 
Principium  et  capiti  non  dant  in  corpore  regnum. 

Prosper  ad  Ingrato3,  zzxrii. 


CHAP.  HI.  DEATH  OF  ZOSBIUS. 


CHAPTER  III. 

NESTORIANISM. 

ZOSIMUS  filled  the  See  of  Rome  only  a  year  and 
nine  months.     His  short  pontificate  was  agi-  Mar_  18)  4^ 
tated  not  only  by  the  Pelagian  controversy,  D^thV18 
but  by  disputes  with  the  bishops  of  Southern  Zosimu8- 
Gaul  and  of  Africa,  hereafter  to  be  considered  when 
the  relations  of  those  provinces  to  the  See  of  Rome 
shall  take  their  place  in  our  history. 

The  death  of  Zosimus  gave  rise  to  the  third  con- 
tested election  for  the  See  of  Rome. 

The  greater  the  dignity  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
the  more  lofty  his  pretensions  to  supremacy,  the  more 
would  ambition  covet  this  post  of  power  and  distinc- 
tion ;  the  more,  on  the  other  hand,  would  holy  and 
Christian  emulation  aspire  to  place  the  worthiest  pre- 
late in  this  commanding  station ;  and  men's  Disputed 

.     .  election, 

opinions  would  not  always  concur  as  to  the  Dec.  27, 28. 
ecclesiastic  best  qualified  to  preside  over  Western 
Christendom.  Thus  while  the  most  ungovernable 
worldly  passions  and  interests  would  intrude  them- 
selves into  the  election,  honest  religious  zeal,  often 
the  blindest,  always  the  most  obstinate  of  human 
motives,  would  esteem  it  a  sacred  duty  to  espouse, 
an  impious  weakness  to  abandon,  some  favorite 
cause. 

The  unsettled  form  of  the  election,  and  the  unde- 


196  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II, 

unaettied      fined  rights  of  the  electors,  could   not  but 

form  of  .  3    ,  T/V»       i  i 

election.  increase  the  difficulty  and  exasperate  the 
strife.  The  absolute  nomination  by  the  clergy  would 
have  been  no  security  against  contested  elections  ;  for 
in  every  double  election  a  large  part  of  the  clergy  was 
ranged  on  either  side,  and  formed  the  rival  factions. 
A  certain  assent  of  the  people  was  still  considered 
necessary  to  ratify  the  appointment.  At  all  events, 
the  people  looked  on  the  election  with  such  profound 
interest,  during  a  contest  with  such  violent  excitement, 
that  it  was  impossible  to  exclude  them  from  interfer- 
ence :  and  both  factions  were  so  anxious  for  their  sup- 
port, that  only  the  losing  party  would  see  the  impro- 
priety of  their  tumultuous  mingling  in  the  fray.  The 
election  of  the  Bishop  was  now  as  much  an  affair  of 
the  whole  city  as  that  of  a  consul  or  a  dictator  of  old, 
without  the  ancient  and  time-honored  regulations  for 
collecting  the  suffrages  by  centuries  or  by  tribes. 

And  who  were  the  people  ?  Was  this  right  equally 
The  people,  shared  by  all  the  members  of  the  religious 
community,  now  almost  coextensive  in  number  with 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city?  Had  the  Senate  any 
special  privilege,  or  were  all  these  rights  of  the  laity 
vested  in  the  Emperor  alone  as  the  supreme  civil 
power,  and  so  in  the  Prefect  of  Rome,  the  representa- 
tive of  imperial  authority  ?  The  popular  universal 
suffrage,  which,  in  a  small  primitive  church,  one  per- 
vaded with  pure  Christian  piety,  tended  to  harmony, 
became  an  uncontrolled  democratic  anarchy  when  the 
bishopric  included  a  vast  city.  It  is  surprising  that 
this  difficulty,  which  was  not  removed  until,  at  a  com- 
paratively recent  period,  the  election  was  vested  in  the 
College  of  Cardinals,  was  not  fatal  to  the  supremacy 


CHAP.  m.  THE  PEOPLE.  197 

of  Rome.  But  though  the  wild  scenes  of  anarchy  and 
tumult,  which,  especially  from  the  eighth  to  the  elev- 
enth century,  impaired  the  authority  of  the  Pope  in 
Rome  itself,  and  desecrated  his  person  ;  though  the 
successful  Pontiff  was  often  only  the  head  of  a  trium- 
phant faction,  and  was  either  disobeyed,  or  obeyed  with 
undisguised  reluctance,  by  the  defeated  party ;  still  dis- 
tance seemed  to  soften  off  all  this  unseemly  confusion, 
above  which  the  Pope  appeared  seated  on  his  serene 
and  lofty  throne  in  undiminished  majesty.  It  con- 
stantly happened  that  at  the  very  time  at  which  in 
Rome  the  Pope  was  insulted,  maltreated,  wounded, 
imprisoned,  driven  from  the  city,  the  extreme  parts  of 
Christendom  were  bowing  to  his  decrees  in  unshaken 
reverence. 

Twice  already  —  perhaps  more  than  twice  —  had 
Rome  been  afflicfted  with  a  fierce  and  prolonged  con- 
test. The  austere  bigotry  of  Novatian  had  maintained 
his  claim  against  the  authority  of  Cornelius.  Felix 
had  been  the  antipope  to  Liberius.  The  streets  .of 
Rome  had  run  with  blood,  the  churches  had  been  de- 
filed with  dead  bodies,  in  the  more  recent  strife  of  Da- 
masus  and  Ursicinus. 

On  the  death  of  Zosimus,  some  of  the  clergy  chose 
the  Archdeacon  Eulalius  in  the  Lateran  Church  ;  on 
the  same,  or  the  next  day,  a  larger  number  met  in  the 
Church   of  S.   Theodora,  and   elected  the   Presbyter 
Boniface.      Three    bishops,    among   whom    was    the 
Bishop   of   Ostia,  either   compelled,   it  was   said,  or, 
yielding  through  the  weakness  of  extreme  old  Dec.  27, 28. 
age,  consecrated  Eulalius.     Boniface  was  inaugurated 
by  nine  bishops,  in  the  presence  of  seventy  Double 
presbyters,  in  the  Church  of  St.  Marcellus. election- 


198  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

Rome  might  apprehend  the  return  of  those  terrible  and 
bloody  days  which  marked  the  elevation  of  Damasus. 
The  Prefect  of  Rome  was  Symmachus,  son  of  that 
eloquent  orator  who  had  defended  with  so  much  en- 
ergy the  lost  cause  of  paganism.  The  outward  con- 
formity, at  least,  of  Symmachus  to  Christianity  may 
be  presumed  from  the  favor  of  Honorius ;  but  it  is 
curious  to  find  a  contest  for  the  Papacy  dependent  for 
its  decision  on  the  son  of  such  a  father.  Symmachus, 
in  his  report  to  the  Emperor,  inclines  toward  the  party 
Buiaiius.  of  Eulalius.  Boniface  was  summoned  to  Ra- 
venna. He  delayed  to  obey  the  mandate,  which 
reached  him  when  he  was  performing  his  sacred  func- 
tions without  the  city  ;  the  officers  of  the  Prefect  were 
maltreated  by  the  populace  of  his  party.  The  gates 
of  Rome,  therefore,  were  closed  upon  Boniface,  and 
Jan.  6.  Eulalius,  in  great  state,  amid  the  acclamations 
of  part,  at  least,  of  the  people,  took  possession  of  St. 
Peter's,  the  Capitol,  as  it  were,  of  Christianity. 

The  party  of  Boniface  were  not  inactive,  or  without 
influence  at  the  court  of  Ravenna.  The  petition  to 
the  Emperor  declared  that  all  the  Presbyters  of  Rome 
would  accompany  Boniface,  to  make  known  her  will, 
or,  rather,  the  judgment  of  God.1  Honorius  issued  a 
Edict  of  rescript,  with  supercilious  impartiality  com- 
Hononug.  manding  both  prelates  to  remain  at  a  distance 
from  the  city,  until  the  cause  should  be  decided  by  a 
synod  of  bishops  from  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Africa.  In  the 
mean  time,  as  the  Roman  people  could  not  be  deprived 
of  the  solemn  rites  of  Easter,  Achilleus,  Bishop  of 
Spoleto,  was  ordered  to  officiate  during  the  vacancy. 

1  Prelectis  singulis  Titulis,  presbyteri  omnes  aderunt,  qui  voluntatem 
iuam,  hoc  est,  judiciura  Dei  proloquantur.  —  Apud  Baronium,  sub  ann.  419. 


CHAP.  III.  BONIFACE  POPE.  199 

Eulalius  would  not  endure  this  sacrilegious  usurpation 
of  the  powers  of  his  see.  He  surprised  by  night,  at 
the  head  of  that  part  of  the  populace  which  was  on 
his  side,  the  Lateran  Church  ;  and  in  contempt  of  the 
Emperor's  orders,  celebrated  the  holy  rites.  But  the 
days  of  successful  conflict  with  the  civil  power  were 
not  yet  come.  The  rashness  of  Eulalius  estranged 
even  Symmachus  from  his  cause  : 1  this  act  was  treated 
as  one  of  rebellion.  Eulalius  was  expelled  from  the 
city.  He  was  threatened,  as  well  as  all  the  Mar.  is-28. 
clergy  who  adhered  to  him,  with  still  more  fearful  pen- 
alties. The  laity  who  communicated  with  Eulalius 
were  to  be  punished,  the  higher  orders  with  banish- 
ment and  confiscation,  slaves  with  death.  The  pri- 
mates of  the  Regions  of  Rome  were  to  be  responsible 
for  all  popular  tumults.  Such  was  the  commanding 
judgment  of  the  Emperor.2 

Boniface  took  possession  without  further  contest  of 
the  Pontifical  throne.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Boniface 
presbyter 3  named  Jocondus,  a  Roman  by  Apr.  '10. 
birth ;  he  was  an  aged  prelate,  of  mild  and  blameless 
character ;  wisely  anxious  to  prevent,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, the  scandals,  and  even  crimes,  in  which  he  had 
been  so  nearly  involved.  He  addressed  the  Emperor, 
urging  the  enactment  of  a  law,  a  civil  law,  which 
should  restrain  ecclesiastical  ambition,  and  coerce  those 
who  aspired  to  obtain  by  intrigue,  what  ought  to  be 
the  reward  of  piety  and  holiness.  Honorius  issued  an 
edict,  that  in  case  of  a  contested  election  both  the  rival 
candidates  should  be  excluded  from  the  office,  and  a 
new  appointment  made.  Thus  the  Imperial  power 

1  Symmachi  rescript,  apud  Baron. 

2  See  the  rescript  of  Honorius,  apud  Baronium 
8  Platin.  vit.  Bonifac. 


200  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

assumed,  and  was  acknowledged  to  possess,  foil  au- 
thority to  regulate  the  election  of  Bishops  of  Rome.1 
During  the  three  years  of  the  pontificate  of  Boniface, 
the  Pelagian  controversy  was  still  drawing  out  its 
almost  interminable  length. 

On  the  death  of  Boniface,2  Eulalius  refused  to  leave 
the  seclusion  into  which  he  had  retired  ;  the  decline  of 
life  may  have  softened  his  ambition  —  for  he  died  the 
B«pt.  4,  422.  following  year.  Celestine  was  elected,  and 
ruled  in  peace  the  See  of  Rome.  The  Pontificates  of 
NOT.  10.  Celestine  I.3  and  his  successor  Sixtus  I.4  were 


occupied  by  the  Nestorian  controversy  :  oc- 
cupied, but  hardly  disturbed.  The  East,  as  it  has  ap- 
peared, had  stood  aloof  serene  and  unimpassioned 
throughout  the  Pelagian  controversy;  in  Palestine, 
the  Latin  Jerome  alone,  and  his  partisans  the  two 
Western  bishops  of  doubtful  fame,  would  not  endure 
the  presence  of  Pelagius.  In  Alexandria  and  Con- 
stantinople, Predestination,  Grace,  Free  Will,  excited 
no  tumults,  arrayed  against  each  other  no  hostile  fac- 
tions, demanded  no  councils.  The  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople pronounced  his  authoritative  decrees,  which 
no  one  desired  to  question  ;  and  expelled  from  his  dio- 
cese Celestius,  or  Pelagius  himself,  whom  no  one  cared 
to  defend.  They  alone,  of  all  powerful  heresiarchs  in 
Constantinople,  neither  distracted  the  Imperial  court, 
nor  maddened  popular  faction. 

Latin  Christianity  contemplated  with  almost  equal 
indifferent  indifference  Nestorianism,  and  all  its  prolific 
<*  u«*  w<*t.  race,  Eutychianism,  Monophysitism,  Mono- 

i  Rescriphim  Honorii,  apud  Baronium. 
»  Boniface  died  Nov.  4,  422. 
«  Celestine  I.,  Nov.  10.  422;  died  July,  432. 
*  Sixtus  I.,  432;  died  440. 


CHAP.  m.  STATE  OF  THE  EAS1.  201 

thelitism.  "While  in  this  contest  the  two  great  Patri- 
archates of  the  East,  Constantinople  and  Alexandria, 
brought  to  issue,  or  strove  to  bring  to  issue,  their  rival 
claims  to  ascendency ;  while  council  after  council  pro- 
mulgated, reversed,  reenacted  their  conflicting  decrees  ; 
while  separate  and  hostile  communities  were  formed  in 
every  region  of  the  East ;  and  the  fears  of  persecuted 
Nestorianism,  stronger  than  religious  zeal,  penetrated 
for  refuge  remote  countries,  into  which  Christianity 
had  not  yet  found  its  way :  in  the  West  there  was  no 
Nestorian,  or  Eutychian  sect.  Some  councils  con- 
demned, but  with  hardly  an  audible  remonstrance, 
these  uncongenial  heresies :  the  doctrines  are  con- 
demned, but  there  appears  no  body  of  heretics  whom 
it  is  thought  necessary  to  strike  with  the  anathema. 

In  the  East,  religion  ceased  more  and  more  to  be  an 
affair  of  pure  religion.  It  was  mingled  up  state  of 
with  all  the  intrigues  of  the  Imperial  court, the  East' 
with  all  the  furies  of  faction  in  the  great  cities.  The 
council  was  the  arena,  not  merely  for  Christian  doc- 
trine, but  for  worldly  ascendency.  Secular  ambition 
could  no  longer  be  distinguished,  nor  could  the  warring 
prelates  themselves  distinguish  it,  from  zeal  for  ortho- 
doxy. Religious  questions  being  decided  by  the  favor 
of  the  Emperor,  the  Empress,  or  the  ruling  minister, 
eunuch  or  barbarian,  that  favor  was  sought  by  the 
most  unscrupulous  means  —  by  intrigue,  by  adulation, 
by  bribery  ;  and  these  means  became  hallowed.  There 
was  no  sacrifice  with  which  Alexandria  would  not  pur- 
chase superiority  over  Constantinople,  or  Constantino- 
ple over  Alexandria  :  the  rivalry  of  the  sees  darkened 
into  the  fiercest  personal  hostility. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  unembarrassed 


202  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

with  the  intricacies  of  the  question,  which  had  no 
temptation  for  his  more  practical  understanding,  with 
the  whole  West  participating  in  his  comparative  apa- 
thy, could  sit,  at  a  distance,  a  tranquil  arbiter,  and  in- 
terfere only  when  he  saw  his  own  advantage,  or  when 
all  parties,  exasperated  or  wearied  out,  gladly  submit- 
ted to  any  foreign  or  unpledged  judgment.  The  East- 
ern prelates,  too  eager  to  destroy  each  other,  were 
either  blind  to,  or  in  the  heat  of  mutual  detestation 
disregarded  this  silent  aggression,  and  admkted  princi- 
ples without  suspicion  fatal  to  their  own  indepen- 
dence. 

On  the  nature  of  the  Godhead  the  inexhaustible 
East  had  not  yet  nearly  run  the  whole  round  of 
speculative  thought;  the  Greek  language  still  found 
new  gradations  on  which  it  might  employ  its  fine 
and  subtile  distinctiveness.  All  these  controversies, 
which  began  anew  with  Nestorianism,  sprang  by  lineal 
and  unbroken  descent  from  the  great  ancestral  princi- 
ple. The  same  Oriental  tenet  (however  it  may  not, 
at  first  sight,  be  apparent)  which  gave  birth  to  the 
various  Gnostic  sects,  and  to  Manicheism,  had  lain  at 
the  root  of  Arianism,1  now  quickened  into  life  Nes- 
torianism and  all  its  kindred  race.  Arianism  had 
arisen  out  of  that  profound  sense  of  the  malignancy 
of  matter,  which  in  its  grosser  influence  had  led  to 

iHist.  of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  p.  443.  Add  to  the  authorities  there 
quoted  this  decisive  passage  from  Arius  himself,  apud  Athanas.  xvi.  de  Syn. 
el  6t  rd  it;  aiirov,  ical  rd  tic  yaarpbg  (Psalm,  ex.  8)  Kat  rb  tic  rov  narpbf 
lt;TJhQav,  ical  rjKU,  ug  fiepof  avrov  6/j.oovatov  KOI  wf  TrpoBofo)  vird  nvuv  voelrat, 
avv&erof  larai  6  irar^p  Kai  duuperdc  KO!  rpeirrbg  nal  aufta  /car'  avrovf. 
Arius  accused  his  adversaries  of  destroying  this  pure  spirituality  of  the 
Father,  by  asserting  the  dpoovaia  of  the  Son.  The  Father  became  likewise 
composed  of  parts,  divisible,  mutable,  corporeal,  and  to  him  this  was  an 
Unanswerable  argument. 


CHAP.  in.  TRIXITARIAXISM  ESTABLISHED.  203 

the  Manicliean  Dualism.  The  pure,  primal,  parental 
Deity  must  stand  entirely  aloof  from  all  connection 
with  that  in  which  evil  was  inherent,  inveterate, 
inextinguishable.  This  was  the  absolute  essence  of 
Deity ;  this  undisturbed,  unattainted  Spiritualism,  which 
disdained,  repelled,  abhorred  the  contact,  the  approxi- 
mation of  the  Corporeal,  which  once  assimilating  to, 
or  condescending  to  assume  any  of  the  attributes  of 
Matter,  ceased  to  be  the  Godhead. 

By  the  triumph  of  the  Athanasian  Trinitarianism,  and 
by  the  gradual  dominance  which  it  had  ob-  Tnnitanan- 

*  •  i  _  ism  estab- 

tained  over  the  general  mind  of  Christendom,  ushed. 
the  coequal  and  consubstantial  Godhead  in  the  Trinity 
had  become  an  article  of  the  universal  creed  in  the 
Latin  Church.  Arianism  survived  only  among  the  bar- 
barians. The  East  adhered  almost  as  generally  to  the 
Creed  of  Nicea.  The  Son,  therefore,  had  become,  if 
the  expression  may  be  ventured,  more  and  more  divine  ; 
he  was  more  completely  not  merely  assimilated,  but 
absolutely  identified,  with  the  original,  perfect,  uncon- 
taminated  Godhead.  Yet  his  descent  into  the  material 
world,  his  admixture  with  the  external,  the  sensible, 
the  created  —  his  assumption  of  the  form  and  being 
of  man  (which  all  agreed  to  be  essential  to  the  Chris- 
tian scheme,  not  in  seeming  alone,  according  to  the 
Docetic  notion,  but  actually  and  really)  —  must  be 
guarded  by  the  same  jealousy  of  infecting  his  pure 
and  spiritual  essence  by  the  earthly  contagion :  that 
which  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  spirituality  of 
the  Father,  might  endanger  the  same  prerogative  of 
the  Son.  The  divine  and  human  natTire  could  not 
indeed  be  kept  separate,  but  they  must  be  united 
with  the  least  possible  sacrifice  of  their  essential  at- 


20-1  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

tributes.  If  (according  to  Nestorius)  the  Eternal 
and  Coequal  Word  were  born,  this  was  a  denial 
Views  of  °f  his  preexistence ;  and  to  assert  that  he 
storius.  could  jje  liable  to  passion  or  suffering,1  in 
the  same  manner  violated  the  pure  spirituality  of  the 
Godhead.  He  proposed,  therefore,  that  the  appella- 
tion, Christ,  should  be  confined,  and,  as  it  were, 
kept  sacred,  as  signifying  the  Being,  composed  of 
the  blended,  yet  unconfounded,  God  and  man ;  and 
that  the  Virgin  should  be  the  mother  of  Christ,  the 
God-man,  not  the  mother  of  God,  of  the  unassociated 
divinity.9  This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  controversy. 
Never  was  there  a  case  in  which  the  contending 
parties  approximated  so  closely.  Both  subscribed, 
both  appealed  to  the  Nicene  Creed;  both  admitted 
the  preexistenee,  the  impassibility  of  the  Eternal 
Word;  but  the  fatal  duty,  which  the  Christians  in 
that  age,  and  unhappily  in  subsequent  ages,  have 
imposed  upon  themselves,  of  considering  the  detec- 
tion of  heresy  the  first  of  religious  obligations,  mingled, 
as  it  now  was,  with  human  passions  and  interests,  made 
the  breach  irreparable.  Men  like  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
in  whom  religion  might  seem  to  have  inflamed  and 
embittered,  instead  of  allaying,  the  worst  passions  of 
our  nature,  pride,  ambition,  cruelty,  rapacity;  and 
Councils  like  that  of  Ephesus,  with  all  the  tumult  and 
violence  without  the  dignity  of  a  senate  or  popular 
assembly,  convulsed  the  East,  and  led  to  a  fierce  and 
irreconcilable  schism. 

The  stern  repudiation  of  the  term,  the  Mother  of 
worship  of     God,  encountered  another  sentiment,  which 
na(j  |jeen  rapidly  growing  up,  as  one  of  the 

1  Patibilis.  2  XpurroroKOf ,  not  Beoronof. 


CHAP.  m.  "WORSHIP  OF  THE  VIRGIN.  205 

dominant  influences  of  the  Christian  mind.  The  wor- 
ship of  the  Virgin  had  arisen  from  the  confluence  of 
many  pure  and  gentle,  and  many  natural  feeh'ngs. 
The  reverence  for  everything  connected  with  the 
Redeemer,  especially  by  ties  so  close  and  tender, 
would  not  with  cold  jealousy  watch  and  limit  its  ardent 
language.  The  more  absolute  deification,  if  it  may 
be  so  said,  of  Christ ;  the  forgetfulness  of  his  human- 
ity induced  by  his  investment  in  more  remote  and 
awful  Godhead,  —  created  a  want  of  some  more  kin 
dred  rnd  familiar  object  of  adoration.  The  worship 
of  the  intermediate  saints  admitted  that  of  the  Virgin 
as  its  least  dangerous,  most  affecting,  most  consolatory 
part.  The  exquisite  beauty  and  purity  of  the  images, 
the  Virgin  Mother  and  the  Divine  Infant,  though  uot 
as  yet  embodied  in  the  highest  art,  by  painting  or 
sculpture,  appealed  to  the  unreasoning  and  unsuspect- 
ing heart.  To  this  was  added,  the  superior  influence 
with  which  Christianity  had  invested  the  female  sex, 
and  which  naturally  clave  to  this  gentler  and  kindred 
object  of  adoring  love.  In  one  of  the  earliest  docu- 
ments relating  to  this  controversy,  the  honor  con- 
ferred on  the  female  sex  by  the  birth  of  the  Lord 
from  the  Virgin  Mary  is  dwelt  upon  in  glowing 
terms :  woman's  glory  is  inseparably  connected  with 
that  of  the  Virgin  Mother.  The  power  exercised 
by  females  at  the  court  of  Constantinople,  now  by 
the  sisters  and  wives,  the  Pulcherias  and  Eudoxias, 
at  other  times,  by  the  mothers  of  Emperors,  the 
Helenas  and  Irenes,  as  in  some  degree  springing 
from  Christianity,  was  strengthened  by,  and  in  its 
turn  strengthened,  this  adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
which  interposed  itself  between  that  of  Christ,  and 


206  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

still  more  that  of  God  the  Father,  and  the  worship- 
ping Christian. 

With  this  view  accords  the  whole  course  of  the 
Promotion  of  history.  On  the  death  of  Sisinnius  Bishop 

Neetorius,  J  . 

A.D.  428.  of  Constantinople,  the  Emperor,  the  younger 
Theodosius,  to  terminate  the  intrigues  and  factions 
among  the  clergy  of  the  city,  summoned  Nestorius 
from  Antioch  to  the  Episcopal  Throne  of  the  Eastern 
Rome.1  Nestorius  appeared,  simple  in  his  dress,  grave 
in  his  demeanor,  pale  and  meagre  from  ascetic  observ- 
ances, and  with  the  fame  of  surpassing  eloquence.2 
He  revived  to  the  expecting  city  the  fond  remem- 
brance of  Chrysostom,  who,  like  him,  had  been  catted 
from  Antioch  to  Constantinople.3  The  Golden  Mouth 
was  again  to  appall  and  delight  the  city.  But  the 
religion  of  Chrysostom,  from  its  strong  practical  char- 
acter, had  escaped  that  speculative  tinge  which  seemed 
natural  to  the  Syrian  mind.  The  last  lingering  ves- 
tiges of  Gnosticism  survived  in  Syria.  Arius,  though 
not  a  Syrian  Presbyter,  found  his  most  ardent  adher- 
ents in  that  province  ;  and  now  from  the  same  quarter 
sprang  this  new  theory,  which,  though  it  rested  its 
claim  to  orthodoxy  on  its  irreconcilable  hostility  to 
Arianism,  grew  out  of  the  same  principle. 

Anastasius,  a  presbyter,  who  accompanied  Nestorius 
commence-  from  Antioch,  first  sounded  the  clarion  of 
tortenilm^*"  strife  and  confusion.  He  publicly  preached 

.  429.  an(j  even  jmpious  to 


1  Nestorius  was  a  Syrian,  a  native  of  Germanicia.  —  Socrat.  vii.  29. 
Theodoret,  Hseret.  Fab.  iv.  12.  Simeon  Batharsam.  apud  Assemanni, 
Biblioth.  Orient,  i.  346. 

a  Tanta  antea  opinione  vixisti,  ut  tuis  te  aliena  civitas  invideret.  Such 
is  the  honorable  testimony  borne  to  the  character  of  Nestorius  by  Pope 
Celestine.  —  Epistol.  ad  Nestor.,  Mansi,  iv.  1206. 

•  Cassian  De  Incarn.  vii.  30.    Tillemont,  page  286. 


CHAP.  m.  OPINIONS  OF  NESTORITJS.  207 

address  the  Virgin  Mary  as  the  Mother  of  God.  The 
indignation  and  excitement  of  the  city  was  heightened 
by  fast-spreading  rumors,  that  the  Bishop  not  merely 
refused  to  silence  the  sacrilegious  Presbyter,  but  openly 
avowed  the  same  opinion.1  As  is  usual,  the  subtile 
distinctions  of  Nestorius  were  unheard  or  unintelligible 
to  the  common  ear.  He  proscribed  an  appellation  to 
which  the  pulpits  and  the  services  of  the  Church  had 
habituated  the  general  mind.  The  tenet  jarred  upon 
the  high-strung  sensitiveness  of  an  inveterate  faith, 
and  awoke  resentment,  on  which  the  finest  argument 
was  lost.  In  the  great  Metropolitan  Church  sermons  of 
the  Bishop  delivered  a  sermon  on  the  Incar-  N< 
nation  of  the  Lord.2  As  an  orator  he  placed  his  own 
theory  in  the  most  •  brilliant  light.  He  dwelt  on  the 
omnipotence,  the  glory,  and  all  the  transcendent  at- 
tributes of  God  the  Creator,  and  of  God  the  Re- 
deemer. "And  can  this  God  have  a  mother?"8 
"  The  heathen  notion  of  a  God  born  of  a  mortal 
mother  is  directly  confuted  by  St.  Paul,  who  declares 
the  Lord  without  father  and  without  mother.  Could 
a  creature  bear  the  Uncreated?  Could  the  Word 
which  was  with  the  Father  before  the  worlds,  become 
a  new-born  infant?  The  human  nature  alone  was 
born  of  the  Virgin :  that  which  is  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh.4  The  manhood  was  the  instrument  of  the  di- 
vine purposes,  the  outward  and  visible  vesture  of  the 
Invisible.  God  was  incarnate,  indeed,  but  God  died 
not ;  his  death  was  but  casting  off  the  weeds  of  mor- 
tality, which  he  had  assumed  for  a  time."  A  second 

1  Socrates,  H.  E.  vii.  29,  32. 

2  Socrates,  H.  E.  vii.  32.    Evagrius,  i.  2.    Liberatus,  Breviar.  c.  4 
8  Socrates,  ut  supra. 

*  Marios  Mercator,  edit.  Gamier,  ii.  p.  5. 


208  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

and  a  third  sermon  followed,  in  which  Xestorius  still 
farther  unfolded  his  opinions :  "  Like  can  but  bear 
like ;  a  human  mother  can  only  bear  a  human  being. 
God  was  not  born  —  he  dwelt  in  that  which  was  born ; 
the  Divinity  underwent  not  the  slow  process  of  growth 
and  development  during  the  nine  months  of  preg- 
nancy." But  the  more  perplexing  and  subtle  are 
arguments  addressed  to  those  whose  judgment  is  al- 
ready ratified  by  their  passions,  they  only  inflame 
resentment  instead  of  working  conviction.  The  whole 
city  was  in  an  uproar ;  every  ecclesiastical  rule  broken 
asunder.  The  presbyters,  in  every  quarter,  preached 
against  their  bishop;  and  a  bold  monk  (the  monks 
were  always  the  faithful  representatives  of  the  relig- 
ious passions  of  their  age)  forbade  the  Bishop,  as  an 
obstinate  heretic,  to  approach  the  altar.  Nestorius 
(and  in  all  his  subsequent  afflictions  it  must  be  re- 
membered that,  when  in  power,  he  scrupled  not  to 
persecute)  did  not  bear  these  insults  with  Christian 
equanimity,  or  repress  them  with  calm  dignity.  The 
refractory  priests  and  the  tumultuous  people  were 
seized,  tried,  and  scourged  more  cruelly  than  in  a  land 
of  barbarians.  Nestorius,  it  is  said,  with  his  own 
hand,  struck  the  presumptuous  monk,  and  then  made 
him  over  to  the  officers,  who  flogged  him  through 
the  streets,  with  a  crier  going  before  to  proclaim  his 
offence,  and  then  cast  him  out  of  the  city.1 

1  This  is  the  account  indeed  of  a  partisan  —  the  report  of  Bacillus  to  the 
Emperor  Theodosius.  Labbe,  Concil.  But  his  whole  history  shows  the 
persecuting  spirit  of  Nestorius:  —  "The  fifth  day  after  his  consecration 
he  endeavored  to  deprive  the  Ariana  of  their  church :  they  burned  it  down 
in  despair.  He  was  called  by  his  enemies  Nestorius  the  Incendiary." 
Socrat.  vii.  29.  He  excited  also  a  violent  persecution  against  the  Nova- 
tians,  Quarto-decimans  and  Macedonians.  —  Ibid,  et  c.  31.  The  most 
damning  fact  against  him,  however,  is  his  own  boast  that  he  procured 


CHAP.  HI.  OPINIONS    OF  STESTORIUS.  209 

Nestorius  found  in  Constantinople  itself  a  more 
dangerous  antagonist.  On  a  festival  in  honor  of  the 
Virgin,  Proclus  Bishop  of  Cyzicum  (an  unsuccessful 
rival,  it  is  said,  of  Nestorius  for  the  Metropolitan  See) 
delivered  a  passionate  appeal  to  the  dominant  feeling. 
The  worship  of  the  Virgin,  in  the  most  poetic  ages 
of  Christianity,  has  hardly  surpassed  the  images  which 
Proclus  poured  forth  in  lavish  profusion  in  honor  of 
the  Mother  of  God.  "  Earth  and  sea  did  homage 
to  the  Virgin,  the  sea  smoothing  its  serene  waters, 
earth  conducting  the  secure  travellers  who  thronged 
to  her  festival.  Nature  exulted,  and  womankind  was 
glorified."  "  We  are  assembled  in  honor  of  the 
Mother  of  God  "  (the  appellation  condemned  by  Nes- 
torius)  ;  "  the  spotless  treasure-house  of  virginity ;  the 
spiritual  paradise  of  the  second  Adam ;  the  workshop, 
in  which  the  two  natures  were  annealed  together :  the 

O  7 

bridal  chamber  in  which  the  Word  wedded  the  flesh ; 
the  living  bush  of  nature,  which  was  unharmed  by 
the  fire  of  the  divine  birth ;  the  light  cloud  which 
bore  Him  which  sate  between  the  Cherubim ;  the 
stainless  fleece,  bathed  in  the  dews  of  Heaven,  with 
which  the  Shepherd  clothed  his  sheep ;  the  handmaid 
and  the  mother,  the  Virgin  and  Heaven;"  —  and  so 
on  through  a  wild  labyrinth  of  untranslatable  meta- 

an  imperial  law  of  the  utmost  severity  against  all  heretics:  Ego,  certe 
legem  inter  ipsa  meae  ordinationis  initia  contra  eos,  qui  Christum  pnrum 
hominem  dicunt,  et  contra  reliquas  haereses  innovavi.  Mansi,  v.  731  or  763. 
For  the  Law,  see  Cod.  Theodos.  de  Haeret.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  writes 
of  Xestorius,  Ut  uni  hseresi  aditum  patefaceret,  cunctarum  haereseon  blas- 
phemias  insectabatur. —  Commonit.  c.  16.  Nestorius  was  in  character  a 
monk,  without  humility.  "  Give  me  (such  is  the  speech  ascribed  to  him  as 
addressed  to  the  Emperor)  a  world  freed  from  heresy,  and  I  will  give  you 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Aid  me  in  subduing  the  heretics,  I  will  aid  yon 
in  routing  the  Persians." 


210  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II 

phor.1  The  cloudy  opening  cleared  off  into  something 
like  argument;  it  became  an  elaborate  reply  to  Nes- 
torius,  the  declaration  of  war  from  one  who  felt  his 
strength  in  the  popular  feeling. 

But  the  war  was  not  confined  to  Constantinople  ; 
Cyril  of  it  involved  the  whole  East.  Now  rushed 
lria'  forward  an  adversary  far  more  formidable 
hi  station,  in  ability,  in  that  character  for  Christian 
orthodoxy  of  doctrine  which  then  hallowed  every  act, 
even  every  crime,  but  from  which  true  Christianity 
would  avert  its  sight  in  shame  and  anguish,  that  such 
a  champion  should  be  accepted  as  the  representative 
of  the  Gospel  of  peace  and  love.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria, to  those  who  esteem  the  stern  and  uncompro- 
mising assertion  of  certain  Christian  tenets  the  one 
paramount  Christian  virtue,  may  be  the  hero,  even 
the  saint :  but  while  ambition,  intrigue,  arrogance, 
rapacity,  and  violence  are  proscribed  as  unchristian 
means  —  barbarity,  persecution,  bloodshed  as  unholy 
and  unevangelic  wickednesses  —  posterity  will  condemn 
the  orthodox  Cyril  as  one  of  the  worst  of  heretics 
against  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  Who  would  not 
meet  the  judgment  of  the  Divine  Redeemer  loaded 
with  the  errors  of  Nestorius,  rather  than  with  the 
barbarities  of  Cyril? 

Cyril  was  the  nephew  of  Theophilus,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  the  worthy  successor  to  the  see  and  to 
the  character  of  that  haughty  and  unscrupulous  prel- 

1  This  sermon  of  Proclus  (to  be  found  Labbe,  Coneil.  sub  ann.)  is  said, 
in  the  ancient  preface,  to  have  been  delivered  in  the  great  church,  in  the 
presence  of  Nestorius.  Nestorius  appears  to  have  answered  this  attack 
with  moderation.  In  dieser  ganzer  Rede  (the  answer  of  Nestorius)  hersa- 
chet  so  viel  Bescheidenheit,  als  gewiss  in  andern  polemischen  Schriften 
dieses  Zeitalters  kaum  angetroffen  wird.  —  Walch,  p.  376. 


CHAP.  111.  CYRIL  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  211 

ate,  the  enemy  of  Chrysostom.  Jealousy  and  animosity 
towards  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  was  a  sacred 
legacy  bequeathed  by  Theophilus  to  his  nephew,  and 
Cyril  faithfully  administered  the  fatal  trust.  He  in- 
herited even  the  bitter  personal  hatred  of  Chrysostom  ; 
refused  to  concur  in  the  general  respect  for  his  mem- 
ory, and  in  the  reversal,  after  his  death,  of  the  unjust 
sentence  of  deposition  from  his  see.  He  scrupled  not 
to  call  the  eloquent,  and  in  all  religious  tenets  and 
principles  absolutely  blameless  Christian  orator,  a 
second  Judas.1  The  general  voice  of  Christendom 
alone  compelled  him  to  desist  from  this  posthumous 
persecution.  Nor  was  Cyril  content  without  surpass- 
ing his  haughty  kinsman  in  the  pretensions  of  his 
archiepiscopate.  From  his  accession,  observes  the  ec- 
clesiastical historian  of  the  time,  the  bishops  of  Alex- 
andria aspired,  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the  sacerdotal 
power,  to  rule  with  sovereign  authority.2  They  con- 
fronted, and,  as  will  appear,  contended  on  equal  terms 
and  with  the  same  weapons,  against  the  Imperial 
magistracy.3 

The  first  act  of  Cyril's  episcopacy  was  that  of  a 
persecutor.  He  closed  the  churches  of  the  cyrfi's  perse- 
Novatians,  seized  and  confiscated  all  their 


iii-i  e> 

sacred  treasures,  and  stripped  the  bishop  of 
all  his  possessions.     The   war   which   he   commenced 
against  the  heretics  he  continued  against  the  Jews  and 
heathens.     But   the  numerous  and  wealthy  The  Jews. 
Jews  of  Alexandria,  who  multiplied  as  fast  as  they 


1  Epist.  ad  Attic,  apnd  Labbe,  204. 

2  Kai  yap  kE,  iKeivai)  f)  imffKonr)  'Afal-avSptiac,  irapa  rfis  IspartKrif  Ta£euc 
radwaarEveiv  TUV  irpa-yfidruv  IAa/3e  TTJV  apxrfv.     Socrat.  H.  E.  vii.  7. 

8  Ibid.  loc.  cit. 


212  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  n 

were  diminished  by  their  own  feuds  or  feuds  with 
the  Christians,  were  not  to  be  oppressed  so  easily 
as  a  small  and  unpopular  sect  of  Christians.  Cyril 
must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  fierce  and 
violent  temperament  of  the  Alexandrian  populace, 
and  with  their  proverbial  character,  that  their  fac- 
tions never  ended  without  bloodshed.1  But  Cyril 
had  himself  too  much  of  the  hot  Egyptian  blood  in 
his  veins  ;  and  the  bishop,  instead  of  allaying  this 
sanguinary  propensity  by  the  gentle  and  humanizing 
influences  of  Christianity,  was  rarely  the  last  to  raise 
the  banner  of  strife,  never  the  first  to  lay  it  down, 
never  laid  it  down  until  his  enemies  were  prostrate 
at  his  feet.  Both  Jews  and  Christians  in  Alexandria 
had  so  far  departed  from  the  primitive  habits  of  their 
religion,  that  their  most  frequent  and  dangerous  col- 
lisions took  place  in  the  theatre  ;  and  the  drama,  in 
its  noblest  form  a  part  of  the  pagan  religion,  had  now 
degenerated  into  such  immodest  or  savage  exhibitions, 
or  in  itself  gave  rise  to  such  maddening  factions  that, 
instead  of  allaying  hostile  feelings  by  the  common 
amusement  and  hilarity,  it  inflamed  them  to  fiercer 
animosity.2  The  contested  merits  of  a  pantomimic 
actor  now  exasperated  the  mutual  hatred  of  the  re- 
ligious parties.  Orestes,  the  prefect  of  the  city,  deter- 
mined to  suppress  these  tumults,  and  ordered  strict 
police  regulations  to  that  effect  to  be  hung  up  in  the 
theatre.  Certain  partisans  of  the  archbishop  entered 
the  theatre,  with  the  innocent  design,  it  is  said,  of 


yap  alftarof  ofi  navErai  lift  dpfajf,    Socrat.  vii.  13. 
8  These  entertainments  usually  took  place  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and 
on  that  idle  day  the  theatre  was  thronged  with  Jews,  who  preferred  this 
profane  amusement  to  the  holy  worship  of  their  Synagogue.  —  Hist,  of 
Jews,  iii.  199. 


CHAP.  m.  CYRIL'S  PERSECUTIONS.  213 

reading  this  proclamation.  Among  these  was  one 
Hierax,  a  low  schoolmaster,  a  man  conspicuous  as  an 
admirer  of  Cyril,  whom  he  was  wont  (according  to 
common  usage  in  the  church)  to  applaud  vehemently 
whenever  he  preached.  From  what  cause  is  not  quite 
clear,  the  Jews  supposed  themselves  insulted  by  the 
presence  of  Hierax  ; 1  they  raised  a  violent  outcry  that 
the  man  was  there  only  to  stir  up  a  tumult.  Orestes, 
jealous,  it  is  said,  of  the  archbishop  on  account  of 
his  encroachments  on  the  civil  authority,  sided  with 
the  Jews,  ordered  Hierax  to  be  seized  as  a  disturber 
of  the  peace  and  publicly  scourged.  The  archbishop 
sent  for  the  principal  Jews,  and  threatened  them  with 
exemplary  vengeance,  if  they  did  not  cause  all  tumults 
against  the  Christians  to  cease.  The  Jews  determined 
to  anticipate  the  menace  of  their  adversaries.  Having 
put  on  rings  of  palm  bark,  in  order  to  distinguish  each 
other  in  the  dark,  they  suddenly,  at  the  dead  of  night, 
raised  a  cry  that  the  great  church,  called  that  of  Alex- 
ander, was  on  fire.  The  Christians  rose  and  rushed 
from  all  quarters  to  save  the  church.  The  Jews  fell 
upon  them  and  massacred  on  all  sides.  When  day 
dawned,  the  cause  of  the  uproar  was  manifest.  The 
archbishop  placed  himself  at  the  head  of  a  formidable 
force,  attacked  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  expelled 
the  whole  race,  no  doubt  not  without  much  bloodshed, 
from  the  city,  and  allowed  the  populace  to  pillage  all 
their  vast  wealth.  The  Jews,  who  from  the  time  of 
Alexander  had  inhabited  the  city,  were  thus  cast  forth 


*  My  suggestion,  in  a  former  work,  that  these  regulations  might  have 
appointed  different  days  for  the  different  races  of  the.  people  to  attend  the 
theatre,  would  make  the  story  more  clear.  The  excuse  which  Socrates 
suggests  for  the  presence  of  Hierax  implies  that  he  had  no  business  there. 


214  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  n 

naked  and  outraged  from  its  walls.  The  strong  part 
which  Orestes  took  against  the  archbishop,  and  his 
regret  at  the  expulsion  of  so  many  thriving  and  opu- 
lent Jews  from  the  city,  warrant  the  suspicion  that 
their  rising  was  not  without  great  provocation.  Both 
parties  sent  representations  to  the  Emperor :  in  the 
interval  Cyril  was  compelled  by  the  people  of  Alex- 
andria to  make  overtures  of  reconciliation.1  On  one 
occasion  he  went  forth  to  meet  Orestes  with  the  Gospel 
in  his  hand  :  the  prefect,  probably  supposing  that  he  had 
not  much  of  its  spirit  in  his  heart,  refused  his  advances. 
The  monks  of  the  Nitrian  desert  had  already  been 
Monks  of  employed  in  the  persecutions  by  Theophilus. 
These  fiery  champions  of  the  Church  took 
arms,  to  the  number  of  five  hundred,  and  poured  into 
the  city  to  strengthen  the  faction  of  the  patriarch. 
They  surrounded  the  chariot  of  the  prefect,  insulted 
him,  and  heaped  on  him  the  opprobrious  names  of 
heathen  and  idolater.  The  prefect  protested,  but  in 
vain,  that  he  had  been  baptized  by  Atticus,  Bishop  of 
Constantinople.  One  of  these  monks,  named  Ammo- 
nius,  hurled  a  great  stone  and  struck  him  on  the  head ; 
the  blood  gushed  forth,  and  his  affrighted  attendants 
fled  on  all  sides.  But  the  character  of  Orestes  stood 
high  with  the  people.  The  Alexandrians  rose  in  de- 
fence of  their  magistrate;  the  monks  were  driven 
from  the  city ;  Ammonius  seized,  tortured,  and  put  to 
death.  Cyril  commanded  his  body  to  be  taken  up : 
the  honors  of  a  Christian  martyr  were  prostituted  on 
this  insolent  ruffian ;  his  panegyric  was  pronounced  in 
the  Church,  and  he  was  named  Thaumasius,  the  Won- 

1  ToOro  ydp  6    Aodf  TUV   'Afel-avdpeuv    abrav   itoidv 
Bocrat.  loc.  cit. 


CHAP.  HI.  HYPATIA.  215 

derful.  But  the  more  Christian  of  the  Christians  were 
shocked  at  the  conduct  of  the  Archbishop.  Cyril  was 
for  once  ashamed,  and  glad  to  bury  the  affair  in  ob- 
livion. 

But  before  long  his  adherents  were  guilty  of  a  more 
atrocious  and  an  unprovoked  crime,  of  the  guilt  of  which 
a  deep  suspicion  attached  to  Cyril.  All  Alexandria  re- 
spected, honored,  took  pride  in  the  celebrated  Hypatia. 
Hypatia.  She  was  a  woman  of  extraordinary  learn- 
ing ;  in  her  was  centered  the  lingering  knowledge  of 
that  Alexandrian  Platonism  cultivated  by  Plotinus  and 
his  school.  Her  beauty  was  equal  to  her  learning ; 
her  modesty  commended  both.  She  mingled  freely 
with  the  philosophers  without  suspicion  to  her  lofty 
and  unblemished  character.  Hypatia  lived  in  great 
intimacy  with  the  prefect  Orestes ;  the  only  charge 
whispered  against  her  was  that  she  encouraged  him 
in  his  hostility  to  the  patriarch.  Cyril,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  said  not  to  have  been  superior  to  an  unworthy 
jealousy  at  the  greater  concourse  of  hearers  to  the  lec- 
tures of  the  elegant  Platonist  than  to  his  own  ser- 
mons.1 Some  of  Cyril's  ferocious  partisans  seized  this 
woman,  dragged  her  from  her  chariot,  and  with  the 
most  revolting  indecency  tore  her  clothes  off,  and  then 
rent  her  limb  from  limb.2  The  Christians  of  Alexan- 
dria did  this,  professing  to  be  actuated  by  Christian 
zeal  in  the  cause  of  a  Christian  prelate.  No  wonder, 
in  the  words  of  the  ecclesiastical  historian,  that  by 
such  a  deed  a  deep  stain  was  fixed  on  Cyril  and  the 
Church  of  Alexandria.3 

1  Socrates,  H.  E.  vii.  13.  2  Damascius  apud  Suidam. 

8  Toi'TO  ov  fuxpdv  fujftov  KvpiHuu,  ital  Tg  'Atel-avdpeuv  tuxfaiaia  e/pyo- 
wo.     Socrat.  loc.  cit. 


216  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

It  was  this  man  who  now  stood  forth  as  the  head 
and  representative  of  Eastern  Christendom,  the  assertor 
Cyifl  «g*in**  °f  P1116  Christian  doctrine,  the  antagon 
Nertonus.  heresy  on  the  episcopal  throne  of  Constan- 
tinople. Cyril  was  not  blind  to  the  advantage  offered 
by  this  opportunity  of  humiliating  or  crushing  by  this 
odious  imputation  the  Bishop  of  the  Imperial  See, 
which  aspired  to  dispute  with  Alexandria  the  primacy 
of  the  East.  The  patriarchs  of  Alexandria  had  seen 
the  rise  of  Constantinople  with  undissembled  jealousy. 
To  this  primacy  Antioch,  perhaps  Jerusalem,  might 
advance  some  pretensions.  Ephesus  boasted  of  her 
connection  with  St.  John.  But  Byzantium  had  been 
a  poor  see  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Heraclea ;  its  claim 
rested  entirely  on  the  city  having  become  the  seat  of 
empire.  This  jealousy  had  been,  no  doubt,  the  latent 
cause  of  the  bitter  and  persevering  hostility  of  The- 
ophilus  towards  Chrysostom.  The  more  ambitious 
Cyril  might  now  renew  the  contest  with  less  suspicion 
of  unworthy  motives ;  he  was  waging  war,  not  against 
a  rival,  but  against  a  heretic. 

The  intelligence  of  the  disturbances  in  Constantino- 
ple and  the  unpopular  doctrines  favored  at  least  by 
Nestorius  spread  rapidly  to  Alexandria ;  the  monks  of 
both  regions  probably  maintained  a  close  correspond- 
ence. Cyril  commenced  his  operations  by  an  Easter 
sermon,  in  which,  without  introducing  the  name  of 
Nestorius,  he  denounced  his  doctrines.  He  followed 
up  the  blow  with  four  epistles,  at  certain  intervals : 
one  addressed  to  his  faithful  partisans,  the  monks  of 
Egypt;  one  to  the  Emperor;  one  to  the  Empress 
mother,  the  guardian  of  her  son  ;  the  last  to  Nestorius 
himself.  The  address  to  the  Emperor  commences  in 


CHAP.  HI.  CYEIL  AGAINST  NESTORIUS.  217 

an  Oriental  tone  of  adulation,  the  servility  of  which 
would  have  been  as  abhorrent  to  an  ancient  Roman  as 
its  impiety  to  a  primitive  Christian.  The  Emperor  is 
the  image  of  God  upon  earth :  as  the  Divine  Majesty 
fills  heaven  and  awes  the  angels,  so  his  serene  dignity 
the  earth,  and  is  the  source  of  all  human  happiness. 
This  emperor  was  the  feeble  boy,  Theodosius  II.  To 
the  Empresses,  the  mother  and  the  sister  of  Theodo- 
sius, as  more  worthy  auditors,  and  judges  better  quali- 
fied to  enter  on  such  high  mysteries,  Cyril  pours  out 
all  the  treasures  of  his  theology.  In  the  letter  to  Nes- 
torius,  who,  it  seems,  had  taken  offence  at  the  dissem- 
ination of  the  address  to  the  Egyptian  monks  in  Con- 
stantinople, Cyril  states,  with  some  calmness,  that  the 
whole  Christian  world,  Rome,  Syria,  Alexandria,  were 
equally  shocked  by  the  denial  of  the  title  "  Mother  of 
God "  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.1  This  epistle  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  second,  which  called  forth  an  answer  from 
Nestorius.  This  answer,  as  well  as  the  whole  of  the 
controversy,  more  completely  betrays  the  leading  no- 
tions which  had  obtained  such  full  possession  of  the 
mind  of  Nestorius.  The  Godhead,  as  immaterial,  is 
essentially  impassible.  The  coeternal  Word  must  be 
impassible,  as  the  coeternal  Father.2  The  human 

1  Labbe,  Concil.  iii.  p.  51. 

2  Kal  rdv  i9«ov  kKelvov  ruv  irarepuv  ebpfiaeu;  X°P^V,  °v  "^v  bpoovaunt 
•QeorrjTa  ira&i]Trjv  eipTjKora,  ovde  uvaaraaav  rdv  fahvpevov  var)v  avaarfjaav- 
ra.     Epist.  Xestor.,  apud  Labbe,  p.  321.    Tdv  yap  b>  rote  irpurou;  anady, 
KTipiixdevTa,  Kal  devrepa;  yewriaeuy  afisKTav,  itd'hiv  Tra^rdv,  Kal  veoKTia- 
TOV  OVK  otd'  OTrug  EiCTj-yev,  p.  322.    This  is  throughout  the  point  at  issue. 
Compare  the  third  part  (in  the  Concil.  Labbe)  containing  the  twelve  chap- 
ters of  Cyril,  the  objections  of  the  Oriental  prelates,  and  the  apology  of 
Cyril  for  each  separate  chapter.    The  one  party  contend  against  the  passi- 
bility,  the  mutability  of  the  Godhead ;  Christ  being  God,  is  aTrai^f  Kal 

The  flesh,  which  endured  all  the  passion  and  the  change, 


218  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

nature  was  the  temple  in  which  dwelt  the  serene  and 
impassive  Divinity.  To  degrade  the  Divinity  to  the 
brute  and  material  processes  of  gestation,  birth,  pas- 
sion, death,  the  inalienable  accidents  of  the  flesh  and 
the  flesh  alone,  was  pure  heathenism,  or  a  heresy  worse 
than  that  of  Arius  or  Apollinaris.  Cyril  himself  is 
driven  by  this  difficulty  to  the  very  verge  of  Xestorian 
opinions,  and  to  admit  that  the  Godhead  cannot  prop- 
erly be  asserted  to  have  suffered  wounds  and  death.1 
But  throughout  this  age  the  strong  repulsive  power  of 
religious  difference  subdues  the  feebler  attractive  force 
of  conciliation  and  peace.  The  epistolary  altercation 
between  Cyril  and  Nestorius  grew  fiercer,  and  with 
less  hope  of  reconcilement.  Nestorius,  though  he 
might  not  foresee  the  formidable  confederacy  which 
was  organizing  itself  against  him,  might  yet  have 
known  on  what  dangerous  ground  he  stood  even  in 
state  of  con-  Constantinople.  The  clergy  of  both  factions, 
rtandnopie.  wfro  had  engaged  in  the  strife  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  Philippus  or  of  Proclus,  the  rivals  of 
the  ruling  archbishop  for  the  see,  mutually  indignant 
at  the  intrusion  of  a  stranger,  were  already  combined 
in  hatred  towards  Nestorius.  All  the  monks  were 
furious  partisans  of  the  "  Mother  of  God."  Against 

was  intimately  connected  with  the  Deity;  was  its  pavilion,  its  dwelling- 
place;  and  this  may  explain  "The  Word  became  Flesh."  Compare  pp. 
844,  881,  892. 

1  Cyril  was  reduced  to  the  expression  <wrai9£f  brafa.  We  find,  too, 
this  remarkable  passage :  ofy  ort  irdvruf  avrbf  6  in  deov  Kara  ovclv 
clf  Aoyof  axe&avev,  17  M%ih]  rjj  Aoyxy  dc  rrjv  •xtevpdv,  iroiav  ydp 
t,  tljrc  fioi,  TrAcvpdv  rd  uauuarov.  17  iruf  uv  axi&avev  i)  &%•  oAA*  frri  lv<+- 
f  TJ  ffapKi,  dra  itatrxovaJK  &>rriK,  «Jf  TW  W«w  xacrxovrof  aufiarof, 
f  iavrdv  olxeiovTat  rb  ira&df.  In  the  Alexandrian  Liturgy  of 
S.  Gregory,  this  expression  has  been  introduced.  KCU  xaduv  iKOvaiof  capri, 
Kat  fielvas  &ir<r&i)f  uf  tfedf .  Apud  Renaudot,  I.  p.  114. 


UHAP.  III.         BOTH  PARTIES  TURN  TO  ROME.  219 

this  confederacy  Nestorius  could  array  only  the  preca- 
rious favor  of  the  Emperor,  the  support  of  some  of  his 
Syrian  brethren,  his  archiepisccpal  authority,  and  the 
allegiance  of  some  of  his  clergy.  Nestorius  rashly 
precipitated  the  strife.  Dorotheus,  a  bishop  of  his 
party,  in  his  presence  pronounced  a  solemn  anathema 
on  all  who  should  apply  the  contested  appellation  to 
the  Virgin.1  A  fiery  and  injurious  protest 2  was  im- 
mediately issued,  professing  to  speak  the  sentiments  of 
the  whole  clergy  of  Constantinople,  and  peremptorily 
condemning  the  bishop,  as  guilty  of  heresy,  and  com- 
paring his  language  to  the  unpopular  and  proscribed 
opinions  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  It  was  read  in  most 
of  the  churches.3 

Both  parties,  Nestorius  and  Cyril  themselves,  could 
not  but  look  with  earnest  solicitude  to  Rome.  Both  parties 

turn  to 

She  held  the  balance  of  power.  If  the  Rome. 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  been  the  most  unambitious  of 
mankind,  he  could  hardly  have  declined  the  arbitra- 
tion, which  was  almost  an  acknowledgment  of  his  su- 
premacy. Nothing  tended  more  to  his  elevation  in 
the  mind  of  Christendom  than  these  successive  Eastern 
controversies,  if  considered  only  as  affecting  his  dignity 
in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  The  deeper  the  East  was 
sunk  in  anarchy  and  confusion,  the  more  commanding 
the  stately  superiority  of  Rome.  While  the  episcopal 
throne  of  Constantinople  had  been  held  in  succession 


1  The  chronology  of  the  events  is  not  quite  clear,  but  this  seems  to  be  the 
natural  order. 

a  This  protest  preserves  some  of  the  expressions  attributed  to  Nestorius. 
"  How  could  a  mother,  born  in  time,  give  birth  to  him  who  was  before  the 
ages?  "  The  word  "  birth,"  it  occurred  to  neither  party  was  used  in  di- 
rectly opposite  senses. 

8  Compare  the  strong  address  of  the  monks  to  the  emperor,  p.  225. 


220  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK.  II. 

by  the  persecuted  Chrysostom,  by  the  heretic  Nesto- 
rius,  as  it  was  afterwards  by  Flavianus,  who,  if  not 
murdered,  died  of  ill  usage  in  a  council  of  bishops ; 
that  of  Alexandria  by  Theophilus,  and  his  nephew 
Cyril,  whose  violence  disgraced  their  orthodoxy ;  a 
succession  of  able,  at  least  blameless,  Pontiffs  of  Rome 
was  now  about  to  close  with  Leo  the  Great.1 

Each,  too,  of  these  Eastern  antagonists  for  ascen- 
dancy was  disposed  to  admit  one  part  of  the  claims  on 
which  rested  the  supremacy  of  Rome.  Alexandria, 
that  of  the  descent  from  St.  Peter :  ancient  and  apos- 
tolic origin  was  so  clearly  wanting  to  Constantinople, 
that  on  this  point  the  Roman  superiority  was  undenia- 
ble. On  her  side,  Constantinople  was  content  to  rec- 
ognize the  title  of  Rome  to  superiority  as  the  city  of 
the  Caesars,  from  whence  followed  her  own  secondary, 
if  not  coequal  dignity  as  New  Rome. 

Celestine,  of  Roman  birth,  who  had  held  high  lan- 
pope  Sa&Se  to  tne  Churches  of  Africa  and  of  Gaul, 

Ceiesane.  af.  ^g  present  period  was  bishop  of  Rome. 

Nestorius  was  the  first  who  endeavored  to  propitiate 
the  Roman  Pontiff.  Some  misunderstanding  had 
already  arisen  between  them  concerning  certain  Pela- 
gians, the  only  heretics  whom  Nestorius  was  slow  to 
persecute;  and  whom,  as  if  ignorant  how  obnoxious 
they  were  to  Rome  and  the  West,  he  had  treated  with 
something  of  Eastern  indifference.  He  addressed  to 
Celestine  a  letter,  fully  explaining  the  grounds  of  his 
aversion  to  the  term  "Mother  of  God."  This  he 
wrote  in  Greek  ;  it  was  sent  into  Gaul,  to  be  correctly 
translated  by  the  famous  monk  Cassianus.2 

1  Not  immediate  succession,  but  the  succession  of  the  greater  names. 
3  Celestinus  ad  Nestorium.    Walch  rather  throws  doubt  on  this  transla- 
tion by  Cassian,  p.  433. 


CHAP.  IH.  MANDATE  OF  CELESTINE.  221 

In  the  mean  time  arrived  the  Deacon  Posidonius 
from  Alexandria,  with  an  elaborate  letter  from  Cyril,1 
which,  with  the  Sermons  of  Nestorius,  he  had  the 
forethought  to  send  already  translated  into  Latin. 
Thus  the  hostile  representations  of  Cyril,  though  de- 
livered last,  obtained  the  advantage  of  preoccupying 
the  minds  of  the  Roman  clergy.2 

To  them,  indeed,  the  Nestorian  opinions  were  utterly 
uncongenial,  as  to  the  whole  of  Western  Christendom. 
They  had  not  comprehended  and  could  not  compre- 
hend that  sensitive  dread  of  the  contamination  of  the 
Deity  by  its  connection  with  Matter :  they  were  equally 
jealous  of  any  disparagement  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Already  her  name,  with  the  title  of  Mother  of  God, 
had  sounded  in  hymns  ascribed  to  St.  Ambrose,  and 
admitted  into  the  public  service.  The  Latin  language 
was  not  flexible  to  all  the  fine  shades  of  expression  by 
which  Nestorius  defined  his  distinctive  differences 
from  the  common  creed. 

Still  Nestorius  was  not  entirely  without  hope  of  ob- 
taining a  favorable  hearing  from  Celestine.     The  first 
reply  of  the  Roman  was  not  devoid  of  courtesy.     But 
his  hopes  were  in  a  short   time  utterly   confounded. 
A  synod  of  Western  Bishops,  presided  over  A  D  430 
by  Celestine,  met  at  Rome.     The  sentence  August- 
was  decisive,  condemnatory,  imperious.     Celestine,  in 
the  name  of  the  Synod,  and  in  his  own,3  Mandateof 
commanded  Nestorius  to  recant  his  novel  and  Celestine- 

1  Posidonius  was  instructed  not  to  deliver  the  letters  of  Cyril,  if  tunse  of 
Nestorius  had  not  been  delivered  to  Celestine. — Statement  of  Peter  the 
Presbyter,  Concil.  Ephes.  in  init. 

2  Nestorius  bitterly  complained  of  the  misrepresentations  of  Cyril  in  thia 
letter,  by  which  he  deceived  Celestine,  a  man  of  too  great  simplicity  to  judge 
•f  religious  doctrines  with  sufficient  acuteness.  —  Irenan  Tragred.  in  Synodic, 

8  Qavepy,  /cat  kyypafyu  bftoTuoyia.    p.  361. 


222  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

unauthorized  opinions  in  a  public  and  written  apology 
within  ten  days  from  the  arrival  of  the  monition :  in 
Aug.  11.  case  of  disobedience,  he  was  to  hold  himself 
under  excommunication  from  the  Church.1 

This  haughty  mandate  to  Nestorius  was  accompa- 
nied by  an  address  to  the  clergy  and  people  of  Constan- 
tinople. It  expressed  the  parental  care  of  Celestine 
for  their  spiritual  welfare,  and  announced  the  decree 
which  had  been  issued  against  Nestorius  by  the  Bishop 
of  Rome.  The  Western  Church  would  take  no  ac- 
count of  any  anathema  or  excommunication  pro- 
nounced by  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  ;  but  having 
declared  such  anathema  null  and  void,  would  continue 
to  communicate  with  all  persons  under  such  interdict. 
And  because  the  presence  of  Celestine  in  the  East, 
however  necessary,  was  impossible,  on  account  of  the 
distance  by  land  and  sea,  he  delegated  lu's  full  power 
in  the  affair  to  his  brother  Cyril,  in  order  to  arrest 
the  spreading  pestilence.2 

The  Syrian  bishops  alone,  of  those  who,  from  their 
Bishops  of  station  and  character,  had  weight  in  the 
Christian  world,  were  yet  uncommitted  in 
the  strife,  Acacius  of  Berea,  the  Patriarchs  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  of  Antioch.  Each  party  courted  their  sup- 
port. Cyril,  with  his  usual  activity,  urged  them  to 
unite  in  the  confederacy  against  Nestorius.  Either 
from  the  sincere  love  of  peace,  or  some  clearer  percep- 
tion of  the  principles  on  which  Nestorius  grounded 
his  opinions,  or  some  secret  sympathy  with  them, 

1  Epist.  Cyrill.  p.  396. 

2  Ko2  tireidi)  kv  TTI^MOVTU  trparyfiart  y  ijfirripa  a^f6dv  -Kapwaia  avaynaia 
tyaivero,  TTJV  fifterepav  diaio^rfv,  dtA  T&  Kara  -da^jurrav  KOI  yijv  diaarrjiuzTa, 
airru  ru  iyitfi  afetyu  fiov  Kvpi/JMt  airevtifta^ev,  pi  aiii}  i)  voaof  aQopftj 
r^f  paicparriTOf  txirpipij.    Epist.  Cyril,  p.  373. 


CHAP.  HI.  CELESTINE'S  ENVOYS.  223 

these  bishops  endeavored  to  allay  the  storm.  John  of 
Antioch,  in  a  letter  full  of  Christian  persuasiveness, 
entreated  Nestorius  not  to  plunge  Christendom  into 
discord  on  account  of  a  word,  and  that  word  not  inca- 
pable of  being  interpreted  in  his  sense,  but  which  had 
become  familiar  to  the  Christian  ear:  Rome,  Alex- 
andria, even  Macedonia,  had  declared  against  him. 
John  required  no  degrading  concession,  no  disingen- 
uous compromise  or  suppression  of  opinion.  If  his 
enemies  were  strong  and  violent  before  the  correspond- 
ence had  begun  with  Rome  and  Alexandria,  how 
would  their  boldness  increase  after  these  unhappy  let- 
ters l  from  Cyril  and  from  Celestine !  But  the  time 
for  reconciliation  was  passed.  Four  bishops,  Theo- 
pemptus,  Daniel,  Potamon,  and  Komarius,  Celestine,8 
arrived  in  Constantinople,  with  the  ultimate  constanti- 
demands  of  Rome  and  Alexandria.  They nople< 
entered,  after  divine  service,  the  Bishop's  chamber, 
where  were  assembled  the  whole  clergy,  and  many  of 
the  most  distinguished  laity  :  they  delivered  the  letters 
to  Nestorius.  Nestorius  received  them  coldly,  and 
commanded  them  to  return  the  next  day  for  the 
answer.  The  next  day  when  they  presented  them- 
selves, they  were  refused  admission.2  Nestorius  as- 
cended the  pulpit,  and  preached  in  sterner  and  more 
condemnatory  language  than  before.  Celestine  and 
Cyril  had  demanded  unqualified  submission :  Cyril 
had  declared  that  it  was  not  enough  to  subscribe  the 

1  Tpa.fj.fid.TGrv  TOVTUV  TUV  anevKruv.    Epist.  Joan.  Antioch.  p.  393.  Nes- 
torius had  almost  consented  to  yield  so  far  as  to  assert  that  it  was  not  so 
much  the  word  itself  as  the  abuse  of  it  which  was  irreconcilable  with  hia 
views  of  the  Godhead. 

2  The  account  of  this  transaction  is  given  by  the  Bishops  Theopemptus 
*nd  the  rest. 


224  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

Creed  of  Nicea,  without  receiving  the  sense  of  that 
Creed  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bishops 
°f  the  Church.  The  twelve  articles  of  ex- 
communication  were  promulgated,  by  the 
zeal  of  the  Bishop's  adversaries,  throughout 
Constantinople.  But  Nestorius,  unappalled,  on  his 
side  launched  forth  his  interdict;  anathema  encoun- 
tered anathema.  Nestorius  excluded  from  salvation 
those  who  denied  salvation  to  him.  For  in  the  awful 
meaning  which  the  act  of  excommunication  conveyed 
to  the  Christian  mind  of  that  age,  it  meant  total  exclu- 
sion, unless  after  humiliating  penitence,  and  hard- 
wrung  absolution,  from  the  mercy  of  the  Most  High, 
—  inevitable,  everlasting  damnation. 

With  stern  serenity  the  enemies  of  Nestorius  con- 
template these  awful  consequences  ;  those  of  worldly 
strife  they  behold  almost  with  satisfaction.  Cyril  ap- 
plies to  these  times  the  much  misused  words  of  the 
Saviour,  —  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace 
upon  earth  :  for  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance 
against  his  father,  and  the  daughter  against  her  mother." 
If  faith  be  infringed  —  faith  even  in  these  minutest 
points  —  away  with  idle  and  dangerous  reverence  for 
parents  ;  cast  off  all  love  of  children  and  of  brethren. 
Death  is  better  than  life  to  the  pious  (those  who  ad- 
here to  the  orthodox  opinions),  for  to  them  alone  is 
the  better  resurrection.1 

The  anathemas  of  Nestorius  are  not  less  remorse- 
jr«torios  less.  They  also  aim  at  involving  Cyril  in  the 
catee  cjniL  odious  charge  of  heresy.  Throughout  is  man- 


t)(x(ifiru  Se  *co2  6  rift  eta  liicva  luu  adetyoiif  fdocrop- 
Cyril.  Epist  p.  396. 


CHAP.  IK.  INFLUENCE  OF  NESTORIUS.  225 

ifest  the  peculiar  jealousy  of  Nestorius  lest  he  should 
mingle  up  the  Deity  in  any  way  with  the  material 
flesh  of  man.  Christ  was  the  Emmanuel,  the  God 
with  us.  The  Divinity  assumed  at  his  birth  the  mortal 
form  and  attributes,  and  so  became  the  Christ,  the  co- 
existent God  and  man.  The  Christ  laid  aside  the  man- 
hood, which  he  had  associated  to  his  divinity,  after  his 
death  and  resurrection.  Accursed  is  he  who  asserts 
that  the  Word  of  God  was  changed  into  flesh.  Ac- 
cursed is  he  who  disparages  the  dignity  of  the  divine 
nature  by  attributing  to  it  the  acts  and  passions  of  the 
human  nature  which  it  assumed  for  the  display  of  its 
Godhead.1 

The  secret  of  the  undaunted  courage  shown  by  Nes- 
torius was  soon  revealed.  He  had  still  un-  ^  influence 
shaken  possession  of  the  mind  of  the  Imperial  at  Court- 
Court.  The  triumph  of  Cyril  was  arrested  by  an  hu- 
miliating rescript  from  Theodosius.  He  was  arraigned 
not  merely  for  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  world,  but 
even  that  of  the  Imperial  family.  The  rescript  ad- 
dressed to  Cyril,  in  unambiguous  language,  relates  his 
haughty  and  dictatorial  demeanor,  reproves  him  as  the 
author  of  all  the  strife  and  confusion  which  disturbed 
the  tranquillity  of  the  Church.  In  order  to  sow  dis- 
sension even  in  the  palace,  Cyril  had  written  in  differ- 
ent language  to  his  august  sister  Pulcheria,  and  to  the 
Empress  and  himself.  The  same  curious,  restless,  in- 
solent, and  unpriestly  spirit  had  led  him  to  pry  into  the 

1  The  anathemas  of  Nestorius  are  extant  only  in  a  bad  Latin  translation. 
It  is  curious  to  find  the  Syrian  bishop,  Acacius,  urging  that  the  poverty  of 
the  Latin  language  prevented  it  from  forming  expressions  with  regard  to 
to  the  Trinity  equivalent  to  the  Greek.  Tw  karevucftai  TTJV  'Pupauajv 
Quvriv,  K.ai  pi  fivvaadai  irpbr  rfjv  fj/iEreptlv  TUV  TpatKuv  ippaalv  rpeif  viroa 
rdaeif  teyeiv.  Epist.  Aeac.  p.  384. 

v<>-    T.  15 


226  LATIN  CHKISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

secrets  and  disturb  the  harmony  of  the  Imperial  family, 
as  well  as  to  confound  the  quiet  of  the  Church,  as 
though  this  confusion  were  his  only  means  of  obtaining 
fame  and  distinction.1 

Theodosius  had  already  acceded  to  the  universal 
Council  of  demand  for  a  General  Council.  This  alone, 
Ephesus.  according  to  'the  opinion  of  the  time,  could 
allay  the  intestine  strife  which  had  set  Rome  and 
Alexandria  at  variance  with  Constantinople,  divided 
Constantinople  into  fierce  and  violent  factions,  and 
appeared  likely  to  renew  the  fatal  differences  of  tho 
Arian  and  Macedonian  contests.  The  Imperial  sum- 
mons was  issued,  and  in  obedience  to  that  mandate 
assembled  the  first  General  Council  of  Ephesus. 

It  might  have  been  supposed  that  nowhere  would 
General  Christianity  appear  in  such  commanding  maj- 
Counciis.  ggj-y  as  Jn  a  Council,  which  should  gather 
from  all  quarters  of  the  world  the  most  eminent  prel- 
ates and  the  most  distinguished  clergy ;  that  a  lofty 
and  serene  piety  would  govern  all  their  proceedings, 
profound  and  dispassionate  investigation  exhaust  every 
subject ;  human  passions  and  interests  would  stand  re- 
buked before  that  awful  assembly ;  the  sense  of  their 
own  dignity  as  well  as  the  desire  of  impressing  their 
brethren  with  the  solemnity  and  earnestness  of  their 
belief  would  at  least  exclude  all  intemperance  of  man- 
ner and  language.  Mutual  awe  and  mutual  emulation 
in  Christian  excellence  would  repress,  even  in  the  most 
violent,  all  on-Christian  violence.  Their  conclusions 
would  be  grave,  mature,  harmonious,  for  if  not  hanno- 

1  Kal  (a)  yeyovbf  (hostility  in  the  Imperial  family)  Troiqaai  {iovfao&ai 
rravrbf,  juMav  f)  lepe&f  bppi<;  [icvroi  fudf  nal  rrjf  avrris  npodsoiuc  TO.  re 
TUV  kniikrioujv,  ra  re  TUV  flaaiAeuv  (u.7J(£iv  xupi&iv  fiovfaadcu,  (if  o£x 
•floijf  a$opiif/f  erepaf  riido/a^aewf .  Sacr.  Theodos.  Iinper.  ad  Cyrill. 


CHAP.  IE.     INCONGRUITY  OF  GENERAL  COUNCILS.  227 

nious  the  confuted  party  would  hardly  acquiesce  in  the 
wisdom  of  their  decrees  ;  even  their  condemnations 
would  be  so  tempered  with  charity  as  gradually  to  win 
back  the  wanderer  to  the  still  open  fold,  rather  than 
drive  him,  proscribed  and  branded,  into  inflexible  and 
irreconcilable  schism.  History  shows  the  melancholy 
reverse.  Nowhere  is  Christianity  less  attractive,  and, 
if  we  look  to  the  ordinary  tone  and  character  of  the 
proceedings,  less  authoritative,  than  in  the  Councils 
of  the  Church.  It  is  in  general  a  fierce  collision  of 
two  rival  factions,  neither  of  which  will  yield,  each  of 
which  is  solemnly  pledged  against  conviction.  In- 
trigue, injustice,  violence,  decisions  on  authority  alone, 
and  that  the  authority  of  a  turbulent  majority,  decisions 
by  wild  acclamation  rather  than  after  sober  inquiry, 
detract  from  the  reverence,  and  impugn  the  judgments, 
at  least  of  the  later  Councils.  The  close  is  almost  in- 
variably a  terrible  anathema,  in  which  it  is  impossible 
not  to  discern  the  tones  of  human  hatred,  of  arrogant 
triumph,  of  rejoicing  at  the  damnation  imprecated 
against  the  humiliated  adversary.  Even  the  venerable 
Council  of  Nicea  commenced  with  mutual  accusals  and 
recriminations,  which  were  suppressed  by  the  modera- 
tion of  the  Emperor ;  and  throughout  the  account  of 
Eusebius l  there  is  an  adulation  of  the  Imperial  convert, 
with  something  of  the  intoxication,  it  might  be  of  par- 
donable vanity,  at  finding  themselves  the  objects  of 
royal  favor,  and  partaking  in  royal  banquets.  But  the 
more  fatal  error  of  that  Council  was  the  solicitation,  at 
least  the  acquiescence  in  the  infliction  of  a  civil  penalty, 
that  of  exile,  against  the  recusant  Prelates.  The  de- 
generacy is  rapid  from  the  Council  of  Nicea  to  that 

1  Hist,  of  Christianity,  ii.  p.  440. 


228  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

of  Ephesus,  where  each  party  came  determined  to  use 
every  means  of  haste,  manoeuvre,  court  influence,  bri- 
bery, to  crush  his  adversary ;  where  there  was  an 
encouragement  of,  if  not  an  appeal  to,  the  violence  of 
the  populace,  to  anticipate  the  decrees  of  the  Council ; 
where  each  had  his  own  tumultuous  foreign  rabble  to 
back  his  quarrel ;  and  neither  would  scruple  at  any 
means  to  obtain  the  ratification  of  their  anathemas 
through  persecution  by  the  civil  government. 

Some  considerations  will  at  least  alky  our  wonder 
at  this  singular  incongruity.  A  General  Council  is  not 
the  cause,  but  the  consequence,  of  religious  dissension. 
It  is  unnecessary,  and  could  hardly  be  convoked,  but 
on  extraordinary  occasions,  to  settle  some  questions 
which  have  already  violently  disorganized  the  peace  of 
Christendom.  It  is  a  field  of  battle,  in  which  a  long 
train  of  animosities  and  hostilities  is  to  come  to  an 
issue.  Men,  therefore,  meet  with  all  the  excitement, 
the  estrangement,  the  jealousy,  the  antipathy  engen- 
dered by  a  fierce  and  obstinate  controversy.  They 
meet  to  triumph  over  their  adversaries,  rather  than 
dispassionately  to  investigate  truth.  Each  is  committed 
to  his  opinions,  each  exasperated  by  opposition,  each 
supported  by  a  host  of  intractable  followers,  each  prob- 
ably with  exaggerated  notions  of  the  importance  of  the 
question ;  and  that  importance  seems  to  increase,  since 
it  has  demanded  the  decision  of  a  general  assembly  of 
Christendom.  Each  considers  the  cause  of  God  in  his 
hands :  heresy  becomes  more  and  more  odious,  and 
must  be  suppressed  by  every  practicable  means.  The 
essentially  despotic  character  of  the  government,  which 
entered  into  all  transactions  of  life,  with  the  deeply 
rooted  sentiment  in  the  human  mind  of  the  supreme 


CHAP.  in.  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  229 

and  universal  power  of  the  law,  the  law  now  centred 
in  the  person  of  the  Emperor,  who  was  the  State  ;  the 
apparent  identification  of  the  State  and  Church  by  the 
adoption  of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  Empire, 
altogether  confounded  the  limits  of  ecclesiastical  and 
temporal  jurisdiction.  The  dominant  party,  when  it 
could  obtain  the  support  of  the  civil  power  for  the  exe- 
cution of  its  intolerant  edicts,  was  blind  to  the  danger- 
ous and  unchristian  principle  which  it  tended  to  estab- 
lish. As  the  Council  met  under  the  Imperial  authority, 
so  it  seemed  to  commit  the  Imperial  authority  to  enforce 
its  decisions.  Christianity,  which  had  so  nobly  asserted 
its  independence  of  thought  and  faith  in  the  face  of 
heathen  emperors,  threw  down  that  independence  at 
the  foot  of  the  throne,  in  order  that  it  might  forcibly 
extirpate  the  remains  of  Paganism,  and  compel  an 
absolute  uniformity  of  Christian  faith. 

The  Council  of  Ephesus  was  summoned  to  Meeti    of 
open  its  deliberations  at  Pentecost ;  the  fifty 
days  from  Easter  were  allowed  for  the  assem- 
bling  of  the  Prelates.  day> June  7- 

Candidianus,  Count  of  the  domestics,  a  statesman  of 
high  character,  was  appointed  to  represent  the  Emper- 
or in  the  Council.  His  instructions  were,  not  to  inter- 
fere in  the  theological  question,  the  exclusive  province 
of  the  Bishops  ;  to  expel  all  strangers,  monks  and  lay- 
men, from  the  city,  lest  they  should  disturb  the  proceed- 
ings ;  to  maintain  order,  lest  the  animosities  of  the 
Bishops  should  prevent  the  fair  investigation  of  the 
truth ;  to  permit  no  one  to  leave  the  Council,  even 
under  pretence  of  going  to  the  Court ;  to  permit  no  ex- 
traneous discussions  to  be  introduced  before  the  assem- 
bly. Candidianus  did  not  arrive  till  after  Pentecost. 


230  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II 

Already,  however,  Ephesus  had  begun  to  be  crowded 
with  strangers  from  all  quarters.  Nestorius  came  ac- 
companied by  not  more  than  sixteen  Bishops  of  his 
party.  Cyril  arrived  attended  by  fifty  Egyptian  Bish- 
ops ;  Memnon,  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  a  declared  ene- 
my of  Nestorius,  had  summoned  thirty  Prelates  from 
Asia  Minor.  Nor  were  these  antagonists  content  with 
mustering  their  spiritual  strength  ;  each  was  accompa- 
nied by  a  rabble  of  followers  of  more  unseemly  char- 
acter ;  Cyril  by  the  bath-men  and  a  multitude  of 
women  from  Egypt  ;  Nestorius  by  a  horde  of  peasants, 
and  some  of  the  lower  populace  of  Constantinople. 
The  troops  of  Candidianus,  after  his  arrival,  begirt  the 
city  ;  Irenaeus,  with  a  body  of  soldiers,  was  intrusted, 
by  the  special  favor  of  the  Emperor,  with  the  protec- 
tion of  the  person  of  Nestorius. 

The  adverse  parties  could  not  await  the  opening  of 
the  Council  without  betraying  their  hostility  ;  skirmish- 
ing disputes  took  place,1  and  no  opportunity  was  passed 
of  darkening  the  fame  and  the  opinions  of  Nestorius  in 
the  popular  mind.  If  Nestorius  came  under  the  fond 
hope  of  being  heard  on  equal  terms,  and  allowed  to 
debate  in  a  calm  and  dispassionate  spirit  the  truth  of 
his  tenets,  such  were  not  the  views  of  Cyril  or  of  Ce- 
lestine.  To  them  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  was 
already  a  condemned  heretic  ;  the  business  of  the 
Council  was  only  the  confirmation  of  their  anathema, 


Aoywv.  Socrat.  vii.  34.  Joanne  Antiocheno  remo- 
rante  *  *  *  Cyrillus  deflorationes  quasdam  librorum  Nestorii  faciebat, 
eum  perturbare  volens.  Et  quum  plurimi  Deum  confiterentur  Jesum  Chri- 
stum, ego,  inquit  Nestorius,  qui  fuit  duorum  vel  trium  mensium  nunquam 
confiteor  Deum  ;  qua  gratia  mundus  sum  a  sanguine  vestro,  et  ammodo  ad 
ros  non  veniam.  Liberatus,  Chron.  c.  5.  This  is  a  good  illustration  of  the 
Latin  misconception  of  the  opinions  of  Nestorius. 


CHAP  HI.  MEMXOX  OF  EPHESUS.  231 

and  the  more  authoritative  deposition  of  the  unortho- 
dox Prelate.  With  them  the  one  embarrassing  diffi- 
culty was  whether,  in  case  Nestorius  recanted  his 
opinions,  they  were  to  annul  the  sentence  of  excom- 
munication and  of  deposal,  and  admit  him  to  a  seat 
in  the  Council.1 

Memiion  of  Ephesus  lent  himself  eagerly  to  all  the 
schemes  of  Cyril.  Nestorius  was  treated  as  Memnon  of 
a  man  under  the  ban  of  excommunication :  EPheBns- 
all  intercourse,  even  the  common  courtesies  of  life  were 
refused.  All  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  were  closed 
against  the  outcast  from  Christian  communion.  When 
he  expressed  his  solicitude,  if  not  to  attend  the  morning 
and  evening  service,  at  least  to  partake  in  the  solemn 
mysteries  of  that  season,  not  merely  was  he  ignomin- 
iously  repelled  from  the  Churches,  even  from  that  of 
the  Martyr  St.  John,  but  the  avenues  were  beset  by 
throngs  of  rude  peasants  brought  in  from  the  country, 
and  prepared  for  any  violence,  and  by  the  Egyptian 
sailors  from  the  vessels  of  Cyril.2 

Pentecost  had  passed  ;  five  days  after  arrived  Juve- 
nalis,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  a  prelate   known  Jnvenal  of 
to  be   hostile   to   Nestorius.      But   John    of  Jerusalem. 
Antioch,  with  the  greater  part  of  the  Eastern  Bishops, 
did   not  appear.      The   Patriarchs   of  Constantinople 
and  of  Alexandria  were  arrayed  as  parties  in  the  cause : 

1  Etenim  qnseris  utrum  sancta  synodus  recipere  debet  hominem  a  se  pra- 
dicata  damnantem ;  an  quia  induciaram  tempos  emensum  est,  sententia  du- 
dum  lata  perduret.    This  is  from  an  answer  to  a  letter  of  Cyril  which  Is 
lost.     Celestine's  reply  to  this  question  is  perhaps  studiously  ambiguous. 
But  the  letter,  as  extant,  is  probably  a  translation.    The  secret  instructions 
of  Celestine  to  his  legates  (apud  Baluzium,  p.  381)  show  his  intimate  alli- 
ance with  Cyril.  —  Labbe,  Cone.  p.  622.    Compare  Walch,  p.  466. 

2  Epist.  Xestorii,  p.  565.     Epist.  ad  Imper.  p.  602.    Epist.  ad  Senat 
303. 


232  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

each  charged  the  other  with  heresy.  The  Roman  Pa- 
triarch of  the  West  was  not  present  in  person  :  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  therefore,  might  seem  necessary, 
if  not  to  the  validity,  to  the  weight  and  dignity  of  the 
Council.  Cyril  and  his  partisans  were  clamorous  for 
the  immediate  opening  of  the  Council ;  the  Bishops 
had  been  already  too  long  withdrawn  from  their  dio- 
ceses. Nestorius  insisted  on  awaiting  the  arrival  of 
John  of  Antioch  and  his  prelates  ;  Candidianus  gave 
the  weight  of  the  Imperial  authority  for  delay.  The 
Emperor  had  required  the  presence  of  John  of  Antioch 
and  the  Eastern  Prelates  at  the  Council.1  Strong  rea- 
sons were  afterwards  alleged  by  John  of  Antioch  for 
his  tardy  arrival.  His  departure  from  Antioch  had 
been  arrested  by  a  famine  in  the  city,  and  daily  insur- 
rections of  the  people  on  that  account ;  inundations 
had  impeded  his  march.2  Many  of  the  Bishops  of  his 
vast  province  were  ten  or  twelve  long  days'  journey 
beyond  Antioch  ;  they  could  not  leave  their  cities  be- 
fore Easter.8  Cyril  himself  had  received  a  courteous 
letter  from  John  of  Antioch,  stating  that  he  had  ar- 
rived within  six  stations  of  Ephesus  ;  that  he  was  trav- 
elling with  the  utmost  speed,  but  that  the  roads  were 
bad ;  they  had  lost  many  of  their  beasts  of  burden  ; 
and  some  of  the  more  aged  Bishops  had  been  unable  to 
proceed  at  that  rapid  rate. 

Cyril,  however,  chose  to  consider  the  delay  of  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch  intentional  and  premeditated,  eithei 
in  order  to  shield  the  guilty  Nestorius  from  the  anath- 
ema of  the  Council,  or  to  escape  any  participation  in 

i  Defens.  trium  Capitulor.    Facundus,  apud  Sirmond  Opera,  ii.  p.  (507 
*  The  epistle  of  John  of  Antioch  to  the  Emperor. 
«  Evagrius,  H.  E.  i.  3,  4.    Labbe,  Concil.  p.  443. 


CHAP.  III.    FIRST  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.         233 

such  a  sentence  against  one  so  well  known,  and  for- 
merly at  least  so  popular,  in  Antioch.1 

Only  sixteen  days  were  allowed    to  elapse  by  the 
impatient  zeal  (the  noblest  motive  that  can  Opening  of 
be  assigned)  of  Cyril  for  the  opening  a  Coun-  fondly' 
cil  which  was  to  represent  Christendom,  to  June>  ^ 
absolve  or  to  condemn  as  an  irreclaimable  heretic  the 
Bishop  of  the  second  capital  of  the  world.     On  Mon- 
day the  22nd  of  June,  in  the  Church  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  (an  ill-omened  scene  for  the  cause  of  Nestorius,) 
met  the  Council  of  Ephesus.2 

The  Count  Candidianus,  in  a  public  report  to  his 
Imperial  master,  describes  the  violence,  unfairness, 
even  the  treachery  of  the  proceedings.  No  sooner  had 
he  heard  that  Cyril,  Memnon,  and  their  partisans  were 
prepared  to  open  the  assembly,  than  he  hastened  to  the 
Church.  In  the  Emperor's  name,  he  inhibited  the 
meeting;  he  condescended  to  entreaties  that  they 
would  await  the  arrival  of  the  Eastern  Bishops ;  he 
declared  that  they  were  acting  in  defiance  of  the  Im- 
perial Rescript.  They  answered  that  they  were  igno- 
rant of  the  contents  of  that  ordinance.  Thus  com- 
pelled, and  lest  he  should  be  the  cause  of  popular  insur- 

1  Cyril's  imputations  against  John  of  Antioch  are  inconsistent  and  con- 
tradictory.   In  one  place  he  charges  him  with  hypocrisy,  and  insinuates 
that  he  kept  aloof  to  favor  Nestorius  (if  the  partisan  of  Nestorius,  his  pres- 
ence would  have  been  more  useful  than  his  absence);  in  another  that,  con- 
scious of  the  badness  of  the  cause  of  Nestorius,  he  kept  aloof  to  avoid  tak- 
ing any  part  in  his  inevitable  condemnation :  "  Do  what  you  will  (rrpaTTere 
a  TtpdrTETs),  only  let  me  not  be  personally  involved  in  the  business." 
Compare  Cyril's  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  Constantinople,  p.  561,  with  the 
Epistol.  Imper.,  p.  602. 

2  The  effect  of  this  arrangement  may  be  conceived  from  the  Sermon  of 
Cyril  (Labbe,  p.  584),  in  which  he  lavishes  all  his  eloquence  in  her  praise, 
through  whom  (&'  #f )  all  the  wonders  and  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  which 
he  recites,  descended  on  man. 


LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

rection  and  rebellion,  Candidianus  read  the  Rescript ; 
and  concluded  by  solemnly  warning  them  against  their 
indecent  precipitation.  This  was  their  object ;  the  read- 
ing the  Rescript  they  considered  as  legalizing  the  Coun- 
cil ;  it  was  followed  by  loud  and  loyal  clamors.  The 
Count  fondly  supposed  that  these  cries  intimated  obedi- 
ence to  the  Imperial  command ;  instead  of  this,  they 
instantly  commanded  Candidianus  to  withdraw  from  an 
assembly  in  which  he  had  no  longer  any  place  ;  insult- 
ingly and  ignominiously  they  cast  out  the  representative 
of  the  Emperor.  They  proceeded  summarily  to  eject 
the  few  Bishops  attached  to  Nestorius  ;  and  then  com- 
menced their  proceedings  as  the  legitimate  Senate  of 
Christendom.1 

The  council  consisted  of  rather  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  bishops — about  forty  from  Egypt,  thirty 
from  Asia  Minor,  several  from  Palestine  with  Juvenalis 
of  Jerusalem,  the  rest  from  Thrace,  Greece,  the  islands 
Crete,  Rhodes,  and  Cyprus,  and  from  some  parts  of 
Asia..  Rufus  of  Thessalonica  professed  to  represent 
the  bishops  of  Illyricum.2  The  proceedings,  according 
to  the  regular  report,  now  that  all  opposition  was  ex- 
pelled, flowed  on  in  unobstructed  haste  and  unprece- 
dented harmony.  Peter,  an  Alexandrian  presbyter, 
who  acted  as  chief  secretary,3  opened  the  business  with 
a  statement  of  the  dispute  between  Nestorius  on  one 
hand,  Cyril  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  on  the  other. 
On  the  motion  of  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  was  then  read 
the  Imperial  convocation  of  the  bishops.  It  was  asked 

1  See  the  statement  of  Candidianus,  pp.  589-59-2.  In  another  place  ha 
•ays,  "  A  vobis  injuries^  et  ignominies^  ejectus  sum."  —  In  Synodico. 

*  According  to  Nestorius,  not  only  the  Eastern  bishops  were  expected 
bat  those  of  Italy  and  Sicily. 

*  Itpififuxfipiof  KoTopiw.     Primicerius  Notariomm. 


CIIAP.  HI.  CITATION  OF  NESTORIUS.  235 

how  long  a  period  had  elapsed  since  the  day  appointed 
by  the  Emperor  for  the  meeting  ;  Memnon  of  Ephesus 
replied  "  sixteen  days."  Cyril  then  rose,  and  asserting 
that  on  account  of  the  long  delay  (of  sixteen  days  !) 
some  bishops  had  fallen  ill,  and  some  had  died,  declared 
that  it  was  imperative  to  proceed  at  once  to  determine 
a  question  which  concerned  the  whole  sublunary 
world.1  The  Imperial  Rescript  itself  had  commanded 
the  prelates  to  proceed  without  delay. 

One  citation  had  been  already  sent  by  four  bishops, 
summoning  Nestorius  to  appear  before  the  ^^^^  of 
council.  Nestorius  had  declined,  not  uncour-  Nestorina- 
teously,  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  the  assembly 
before  the  arrival  of  all  the  bishops.  A  second  and  a 
third  deputation  of  the  same  number  of  bishops  was 
sent.  The  first  reported  that  they  were  not  permitted 
by  the  guard  to  approach  the  presence  of  Nestorius, 
but  received  from  his  attendants  the  same  answer  ;  the 
third  that  they  were  exposed  to  the  indignity  of  being 
kept  standing  in  the  heat  of  the  sun,  and  not  allowed 
to  enter  the  palace. 

The  proceedings  now  commenced :  the  Nicene  Creed 
was  read,  and  then  Cyril's  letter  to  Nestorius. 
The  bishops  in  succession  declared  their  full  co 
faith  in  the  creed,  and  the  perfect  concordance  of 
Cyril's  exposition  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Nicene 
Fathers.  Then  followed  the  answer  of  Nestorius  to 
Cyril.  Cyril  put  the  question  of  its  agreement  with 
the  creed  of  Nicea.  One  after  another  the  bish- 
ops rose,  and  in  language  more  or  less  vehement, 
pronounced  the  tenets  of  Nestorius  to  be  blasphemous, 
and  uttered  the  stern  anathema.  All  then  joined  in 

1  Eif  ufefetav  airdaiis  tyf  vir1  ovpavov.    p.  453. 


236  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

one  tumultuous  cry,  "  Anathema  to  him  who  does  not 
anathematize  Nestorius."  The  church  rang  with  the 
fatal  and  reechoed  word,  "  Anathema,  anathema  !  The 
whole  world  unites  in  the  excommunication  :  anathema 
on  him  who  holds  communion  with  Nestorius  !  " 

The  triumph  of  Cyril  ceased  not  here.  The  con- 
demnatory letters  of  Celestine  of  Rome  to  Nestorius 
were  read  and  inserted  in  the  acts  of  the  council.  Cer- 
tain bishops  averred  that  of  their  personal  knowledge 
Nestorius  had  not  retracted  his  obnoxious  doctrines. 
Then  were  read  extracts  from  the  works  of  the  great 
theologians,  Athanasius,  Gregory,  Basil,  and  others: 
many  of  these  were  of  very  doubtful  bearing  on  the 
question  raised  by  Nestorius ;  they  were  contrasted  with 
large  extracts  from  his  writings.  A  letter  was  read 
from  Capreolus,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  excusing  the  ab- 
sence of  the  African  clergy  on  account  of  the  miserable 
desolation  and  the  wars  which  afflicted  the  province, 
asserting  in  general  terms  their  cordial  adherence  to  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  and  their  abhorrence  of  heretical 
innovations. 

The  Council,  it  is  said,  compelled  by  the  sacred 
Decree  of  canons  and  amid  the  tears  of  many  bishops, 
proceeded  to  deliver  its  awful  sentence ; l 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  blasphemed  by  Nestorius,  (so 
ran  the  decree,)  declares  him  deposed  from  his  epis- 
copal rank,  and  from  all  his  ecclesiastical  functions. 
All  the  bishops  subscribed  the  sentence.2  The  whole 
of  this  solemn  discussion,  with  its  fearful  conclusion, 
was  crowded  into  one  day !  The  impatient  populace 

1  'A.vayKaiu(   /care7r«p?evTef  two  re  TUV  KOVOVUV  *  *  #  daKpvaavres 
rroAAcudf  *  *  *  ffKvdpum)v  unoQaaiv.  Labbe,  p.  533. 

2  Above  two  hundred  names  appear.  Some  perhaps  were  added  as  con- 
curring in  the  sentence. 


CHAP.  III.  ARRIVAL  OF  SYRIAN  BISHOPS.  237 

had  been  waiting  from  morn  till  evening  the  issue 
of  the  Council.  No  sooner  had  they  heard  the  dep- 
osition of  this  new  Judas,  than  they  broke  out  into 
joyous  clamors  ;  escorted  the  Prelates  with  torches 
to  their  homes ;  women  went  before  them  burning 
incense.  A  general  illumination  took  place.  Thus 
did  the  Saviour,  writes  Cyril,  proudly  recounting  these 
popular  suffrages,  show  his  Almighty  power  against 
those  who  blasphemed  his  name.1 

Five  days  after  arrived  John  of  Antioch,  and  the 
Eastern  Prelates  ;  they  were  received  with  Arrival  of 
great  honor  by  Count  Candidianus,  by  the  Bishops, 
other  bishops  not  only  with  studied  discourtesy,  but 
with  tumultuous  and  disorderly  insult.2  Nestorius 
kept  aloof  in  judicious  seclusion.  These  Prelates  pro- 
ceeded to  instal  themselves  as  a  Council,  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Imperial  Commissary.  Their  first 
inquiry  was  whether  the  former  Council  had  been 
conducted  with  canonical  regularity,  and  the  sentence 
passed  after  dispassionate  investigation.  Candidianus 
bore  testimony  to  the  indecent  haste  and  precipita- 
tion of  the  decree.  But  instead  of  calmly  protesting 
against  these  violent  proceedings,  and  declaring  them 
null  and  void,  as  wanting  their  own  concurrent  voice, 
this  small  synod  of  between  forty  and  fifty  bishops,8 
rushed  into  the  error  which  they  had  proscribed  in 
others ;  with  no  calmer  or  longer  inquiry,  before  they 

1  Cyril's  letter  to  the  people  of  Alexandria. 

2  Compare,  however,  the  statement  of  Memnon,  a  suspicious  witness, 
p.  763. 

8  These  bishops  did  not  all  come  with  John ;  some  were  of  those  pre- 
viously assembled  at  Ephesus,  who  had  refused  to  take  part  in  the  council. 
Their  adversaries  assert  that  some  of  them  were  deprived  bishops,  others 
not  bishops  at  all.  According  to  this  statement  John's  party  did  not 
amount  to  more  than  thirty. — Epist.  Cyril,  et  Memnon.  p.  638. 


238  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

had  shaken  the  dust  off  their  feet,1  they  condemned 
the  doctrines  of  Cyril,  as  tainted  with  Arianism, 
Eunomianism,  and  Apollinarianism ;  pronounced  the 
sentence  of  deposition  against  the  most  religious  Cyril 
(ecclesiastical  courtesy  held  this  appellation  inseparable 
from  that  of  bishop)  and  against  Memnon  of  Ephesus ; 
and  recorded  their  solemn  anathema  against  the  Prel- 
ates of  the  adverse  Council.2  The  sentence  condemned 
not  their  heresy  alone,  but  likewise  their  disobedience  to 
the  Imperial  authority,  and  their  impious  violence  in 
excluding  the  faithful  from  the  holy  ceremonies  of  Pen- 
tecost, their  closing  the  churches,  and  besetting  them 
with  gangs  of  Egyptian  sailors  and  ecclesiastics,  and 
with  Asiatic  boors.  The  excommunication  was  pub- 
lished throughout  the  city  with  the  solemnity  of  an 
Imperial  proclamation.  Cyril  and  Memnon  launched 
a  counter-anathema ;  and  instead  of  abstaining,  as  ex- 
communicated persons,  from  the  sacred  offices,  cele- 
brated them  with  greater  pomp  and  public ity. 

In  the  mean  time  letters  arrived  from  the  Bishop  of 
Jniy  10.        Rome,    Celestine.     Cyril's   council   reassem- 

Letters  rf.  ,.,',,' 

ceiestine,  bled  to  receive  them  ;  every  sentence  was  in 
such  full  accordance  with  their  views,  that  the  whole 
assembly  rose  in  acclamation.  "  The  council  renders 
thanks  to  the  second  Paul,  Celestine ;  to  the  second 
Paul,  Cyril ;  to  Celestine,  protector  of  the  faith ;  to 
Celestine,  unanimous  with  the  council.  One  Celes- 
tine, one  Cyril,  one  faith  in  the  whole  council,  one 
faith  throughout  the  world."8  The  Bishops  Arcadius 
and  Projectus,  with  Philip  the  Presbyter,  the  legates 
of  Rome,  gave  their  deliberate  sanction  to  the  deposi- 

l  Cyril,  Epist  ad  Celestin.  p.  663. 

«  Labbe,  Concil.  599. 

*  Actio  Secunda  Concilii,  p.  618. 


CHAP.  m.  EIOTOUS  PROCEEDINGS.  239 

tion  of  Nestorius.  At  another  sitting  it  was  reported 
that  endeavors  had  been  made  to  bring  John  of  An- 
tioch,  now  accused  as  an  accomplice  in  the  guilt  and 
heresy  of  Nestorius,  to  an  amicable  conference.  Three 
bishops,  deputed  to  him,  had  been  repelled  by  the  fierce 
and  turbulent  soldiery  who  guarded  his  residence.  A 
second  deputation  had  been  admitted  to  his  presence : 
he  loftily  refused  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  excom- 
municated persons.  On  this  report  the  council  pro- 
ceeded to  annul  all  the  decrees  of  John  and  his  synod. 
Having  thrice  cited  him  to  appear,  they  declared  John 
of  Antioch  deposed  and  excommunicated,  as  well  as 
all  the  bishops  of  his  party.1  Cyril  was  not  idle  in  his 
more  public  sphere  of  influence.  He  thundered  from 
the  pulpit  against  the  bold  man  who  had  interfered 
in  his  triumphant  conflict  with  the  dragon  of  heresy, 
which  vomited  out  its  poison  against  the  Church ;  he 
asserted  that  he  was  ready  to  encounter  this  new 
Goliath  with  the  arms  of  faith.2 

Both  parties  were  disposed  to  employ  weapons  of 
a  more  worldly  temper.     John  of  Antioch  violent 
threatened  the  election  of  a  new  Bishop  of  contest- 
Ephesus  in  the  place  of  the  deprived  Memnon.3     A 
peaceful  band  of  worshippers  according  to  one  account, 
more  probably  an  armed  host,  determined  to  force  their 
way  into  the  cathedral  of  St.  John.     They  found  it 

1  The  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  claimed  jurisdiction,  as  of  ancient  usage, 
over  the  see  of  Antioch.  —  p.  642. 

2  'EKTJpev,  (if  6p«f,  6  KokvKtyaTuos  dpdicuv  TT)V  avoatov  Kai  Se/fyfov  K£<f>~ 
a^)v,  Totf  TTjf  eKKTi-rjciaf  T£/cvot?  rbv  T7/f  idiaf  avoaio-njrof  Ibv  kmirrvuv, 
"  This  Goliath  from  the  East  shall  fall  by  stones  from  the  scrip  of  Christ ; 
and  what  is  the  scrip  of  Christ  ?  the  Church,  which  contains  many  stones, 
elect  and  precious."     This  is  a  specimen  of  the  Archbishop's  religious  rhap- 
sody.   Homil.  Cyril,  p.  667. 

3  Labbe,  p.  710. 


240  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

beset  by  Memnon  with  a  strong  garrison.  Content, 
according  to  their  own  partial  statement,  with  wor- 
shipping without  the  doors,  they  were  retreating  in 
peace,  when  the  partisans  of  Memnon  made  a  des- 
perate sally,  took  men  and  horses  prisoners,  assailed 
them,  and  drove  them  through  the  streets  with  clubs 
and  stones,  not  without  much  bloodshed.1 

The  court  of  Theodosius  was  perplexed  with  the 
Consunu-  contradictory  and  doubtful  reports  from  Eph- 
esus.  Candidianus  and  the  party  of  Nesto- 
rius  jealously  watched  the  issues  of  the  city,  that  no 
representations  from  Cyril  and  his  council  should 
reach  the  imperial  ear.  Theodosius  still  maintained 
his  impartiality,  or  more  probably  a  minister  favorable 
to  Nestorius  ruled  in  the  court.  An  imperial  letter 
arrived,  written  in  the  interval  between  the  deposition 
of  Nestorius  and  the  arrival  of  John  of  Antioch,2 
strongly  reproving  the  proceedings  of  the  council, 
annulling  all  its  decrees,  commanding  the  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  creed  by  the  whole  assembly,  forbidding  any 
bishop  to  leave  Ephesus  till  the  close  of  the  council,  and 
announcing  the  appointment  of  a  second  commissary  to 
assist  the  Count  Candidianus.  But  all  the  watchful- 
ness of  the  government  and  of  Nestorius  could  not  in- 
tercept the  secret  correspondence  of  Cyril's  party  with 
their  faithful  allies,  the  earliest  and  most  inveterate 
enemies  of  Nestorius,  the  monks  of  Constantinople.  A 
beggar  brought  a  letter,  announcing  to  them  the  glad 
tidings  of  the  deposition  of  Nestorius,  which  the  court 
had  not  condescended  to  communicate  to  the  people. 

1  Their  own  despatches  urged,  and  no  doubt  exaggerated,  the  contempt 
of  the  imperial  authority,  the  lawlessness  of  the  rabble  at  the  command  of 
Cyril  and  of  Memnon. 

*  It  was  sent  in  great  haste,  by  the  imperial  officer,  Palladium 


CHAP.  HI.  EMPEKOR'S  RESCRIPTS.  241 

The  court  must  be  overawed ;  these  spiritual  dema- 
gogues would  not  await  the  tardy  and  doubtful  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Emperor. 

Dalmatius,  a  monk  of  high  repute  for  his  austere 
sanctity,  who,  it  is  said,  had  in  vain  been  solicited 
by  the  Emperor  himself  to  quit  his  cell  and  inter- 
cede for  the  city  during  an  earthquake,  now,  com- 
pelled by  this  more  weighty  call,  came  forth  from  his 
solitude.  A  vision  had  confirmed  his  sense  of  the 
imperious  necessity.  At  the  head  of  a  procession 
of  archimandrites  and  monks  he  passed  slowly  through 
the  streets  and  sate  down,  as  it  were,  to  besiege  the 

1  '  O 

palace.  Wherever  he  passed,  the  awed  and  wondering 
people  burst  out  into  an  anathema  against  Nestorius. 

But  the  court  did  not  as  yet  stoop  from  its  lofty 
dictatorship  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  A  new  Emperor>8 
Imperial  Commissary,  one  of  the  highest  rescnPte- 
officers  of  state,  named  John,  appeared  in  Ephesus. 
His  first  measure  was  one  of  bold  and  severe  impar- 
tiality, a  vigorous  assertion  of  the  civil  supremacy, 
humiliating  to  the  pride  of  sacerdotal  dignity.  The 
Imperial  letters  sanctioned  equally  the  decrees  of  each 
conflicting  party,  the  deposition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon, 
as  well  as  of  Nestorius.  John  summoned  all  the 
Prelates  to  his  presence.  At  the  dawn  of  morning 
appeared  Nestorius  with  John  of  Antioch.  Some- 
what later,  Cyril  presented  himself  with  the  bishops 
of  his  party ;  Memnon  alone  refused  to  come.  Here- 
upon arose  a  clamorous  debate.  Cyril  and  his  bishops 
would  not  endure  the  presence  of  the  heretical  and 
excommunicated  Nestorius.  The  divine  and  awful 
letters  could  not  be  read  either  in  the  absence  of 
Cyril,  or  in  the  presence  of  Nestorius.  The  party 

VOL.  I.  16 


242  LATEST  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

of  Nestorius  and  John  as  peremptorily  demanded  the 
expulsion  of  the  deposed  and  excommunicated  Cyril. 
The  debate  maddened  into  sedition,  sedition  into  a 
battle.  The  Imperial  Representative  was  compelled 
to  use  his  military  force  to  restrain  the  refractory 
churchmen,  before  he  could  read  the  Emperor's  let- 
ters. At  the  sentence  of  deposition  against  Cyril  and 
Memnon,  the  clamors  broke  out  with  fresh  violence. 
John,  the  Prefect,  took  a  commanding  tone ;  he  or- 
dered the  arrest  and  committal  to  safe  but  honorable 
custody  of  all  the  contending  prelates.  Nestorius  and 
John  of  Antioch  submitted  without  remonstrance. 
Cyril,  after  a  homily  to  the  people,  in  which  he 
represented  himself  as  the  victim  of  persecution,  in- 
curred by  Apostolic  innocence  and  borne  with  Apos- 
tolic resignation,  yielded  to  the  inevitable  necessity. 
Memnon  at  first  concealed  himself,  and  attempted  to 
elude  apprehension,  but  at  length  voluntarily  surren- 
dered to  the  Imperial  authority. 

The  throne  was  besieged,  and  confused  by  strong 
representations  on  both  sides.  At  length  it  was  de- 
termined that  eight  deputies  for  each  party  should  be 
permitted  to  approach  the  court,  and  stand  before  the 
sacred  presence  of  the  Emperor.  In  Constantinople 
this  assembly  might  cause  dangerous  tumults :  they 
oonnca  of  met  therefore  in  the  suburb  of  Chalcedon. 

OuUcedon.       Qn     ^     ^     of    Q^     appeared    philip    the 

Presbyter,  the  representative  of  Pope  Celestine.  and 
the  Western  Bishop  Arcadius,  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem, 
Flavianus  of  Philippi,  Firmus  of  the  Cappadocian 
CaBsarea,  Acacius  of  Melitene,  Theodotus  of  Ancyra, 
Euoptius  of  Ptolemais.  On  that  of  the  Orientals,  the 
Metropolitans  John  of  Antioch,  John  of  Damascus, 


•CHAP.  IH.  PULCHEKIA.  243 

Himerius  of  Nicomedia ;  the  Bishops  Paul  of  Emesa, 
Macarius  of  Laodicea,  Apringius  of  Chalcis,  Theod- 
oret  of  Cyrus,  and  Helladius  of  Ptolemais.  Though 
the  Bishop  of  Chalcedon  endeavored  to  close  the 
churches  on  the  Oriental  bishops,  and  the  fanatic 
Monks  from  Constantinople  threatened  to  stone  them,1 
the  people,  according  to  their  statement,  listened  with 
absorbed  interest  to  the  eloquence  of  Theodoret,  Bishop 
of  Cyrus,  and  to  the  mild  exhortations  of  John  of 
Antioch.  The  youthful  Emperor  himself,  when  they 
taunted  the  adverse  doctrine  with  degrading  the  God- 
head to  a  passible  being,  rent  his  robes  at  the  blas- 
phemy.2 The  Oriental  Bishops  gradually  began  to 
separate  the  cause  of  Nestorius  from  their  own.  They 
insisted  much  more  on  the  heresy  of  Cyril  than  on  the 
orthodoxy  of  Nestorius.  They  accused  him  of  assert- 
ing that  the  Godhead  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God  suffered,  not  the  Manhood.3  They  protested  that 
they  would  rather  die  than  subscribe  the  twelve  chap- 
ters of  Cyril,  in  which  the  anti-Nestorian  doctrine  had 
now  taken  a  determinate  form ;  or  communicate  with 
a  Prelate  deposed  by  their  legitimate  authority. 

Other  influences  were  now  at  work  at  the  court  of 
Constantinople.     The  masculine  but  ascetic  mind  of 
Pulcheria,  the  sister,  the  guardian,  the  Em-  Puicheria. 
press,  she  may  be  called,  of  the  Emperor,  with  her 

1 "  Nam  Constantinopoli  neque  nos,  neque  adversarii  nostri  intrare  per- 
missi  suinus,  propter  seditiones  bonorum  monachorum."  —  Epist.  Oriental, 
p.  732. 

2  See  the  short  but  curious  statement  in  Latin :  —  "  Passibilem  esse  deita- 
tem.  Quod  usque  adeo  gravatim  tulit  pius  rex  noster,  ut  excuteret  pallium, 
et  retrorsum  cederet  prse  blasphemiae  multitudine."  — p.  716. 

8  'Qf  ij  deorrje  TOV  (tovoyevovf  Qeov  vlov  made,  KOL  OVK  i\  avi?pw7rorj?f. 
This  they  considered  nearly  allied  to  Arianism,  as  making  the  Son  a 
:reated  being.  See  the  full  view  of  their  tenets  in  the  Epist.  Oriental,  p.  740 


244  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

rigid  devotion  to  orthodoxy  and  her  monastic  character, 
was  not  likely  to  swerve  from  the  dominant  feeling  of 
the  Church  ;  to  comprehend  the  fine  Oriental  Spirit- 
ualism which  would  keep  the  Deity  absolutely  aloof 
from  all  intercourse  with  matter,  as  implied  in  his  pas- 
sibility :  least  of  all,  to  endure  any  impeachment  on 
the  Mother  of  God,  the  tutelar  Deity,  and  the  glory 
of  her  sex.  The  power  of  the  Virgin  in  the  Court  of 
Heaven  was  a  precedent  for  that  of  holy  females  in  the 
courts  of  earth.  To  the  Virgin  Empress,  in  later 
times,  the  gratitude  of  the  triumphant  party  of  Cyril 
and  of  the  West  attributed  the  glory  of  the  degrada- 
tion and  banishment  of  Nestorius,  and  the  discomfiture 
and  dispersion  of  his  followers.  Still  later,  the  Pope  Leo 
addresses  her  as  having  expelled  the  crafty  enemy  from 
the  Church :  and  her  name  was  constantly  saluted  in 
the  streets  of  Constantinople  as  the  enemy  of  heretics.1 

Nestorius  was  quietly  abandoned  by  both  parties. 
Nestorius  The  secret  of  this  change  lies  deeper  in  the 
abandoned.  recesses  of  the  Imperial  councils.  The  Eu- 
nuch minister,  who  had  been  his  powerful  supporter, 
died ;  he  might,  indeed,  not  long  have  enjoyed  this 
treacherous  favor,  for  the  Eunuch  had  most  impartially 
condescended  to  receive  bribes  from  the  opposite  fac- 
tion also.  When  the  Emperor  ordered  his  vast  treas- 
ures to  be  opened,  confiscated  no  doubt  to  the  Imperial 
use,  a  receipt  was  found  for  many  pounds  of  gold  re- 
ceived from  Cyril  through  Paul,  his  sister's  son.2 

Nestorius  was  allowed  the  vain  honor  of  a  voluntary 

1 "  Quo  dudum  subdolum  sanctse  religionis  hostem,  ab  ipsis  visceribua 
ecclesiae  depulistis,  quum  hteresin  suam  tueri  impietas  Nestoriana  non  pot- 
nit." —  S.  Leon.  Epist.  59. 

8  Epist.  Acacii  Berocens.  ad  Alexandrum  Episc.  Ilierapol.  Acaciua  heard 
'his  from  John  of  Antioch. 


CHAP.  IE.  CYRIL  IN  ALEXANDRIA.  245 

abdication.  From  Ephesus  he  was  permitted  to  retire 
to  a  monastery  at  Antioch.  This  monastery,  of  St. 
Euprepius,  had  been  the  retreat  of  his  early  youth ;  he 
returned  to  it,  having  endured  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
promotion  and  degradation.  There  he  lived  in  peace 
and  respect  for  four  years. 

Cyril  in  the  mean  time  had  escaped  or  had  been  per- 
mitted to  withdraw  from  the  custody  of  the  CyrU  in 
Imperial  officers  at  Ephesus.  He  returned Alexandria- 
to  Alexandria,  where  he  was  received  in  triumph  as 
the  great  Champion  of  the  Faith.  Thence,  from  the 
security  of  his  own  capital,  almost  with  the  pride  of 
an  independent  potentate,  but  with  the  unscrupulous 
use  of  all  means  at  his  command,  he  directed  the  move- 
ments of  the  theologic  warfare,  which  was  maintained 
for  three  weary  years  with  the  Oriental  Prelates.  The 
wealth  of  Alexandria  was  his  most  powerful  ally. 
While  yet  at  Chalcedon,  the  desponding  Orientals 
complain  that  their  judges  are  ah1  bought  by  Egyptian 
gold.1  But  this  fact  rests  even  on  more  conclusive 
testimony.  Maximian,  a  Roman,  had  been  raised  to 
the  vacant  see  of  Constantinople.  His  first  measure 
betrayed  his  bearing.  He  commanded  all  the  churches 
of  Constantinople  to  be  closed  against  the  Oriental 
Bishops,  who  desired  to  pass  over  from  Chalcedon  to 
visit  the  capital,  as  being  under  the  unrepealed  ban  of 
the  Church.  A  letter  has  survived,  addressed  by 
Cyril's  avowed  agents  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 
They  urge  the  willing  Prelate  to  endeavor  to  rouse  the 
somewhat  languid  zeal  of  the  Princess  Pulcheria  in  the 

i  This  is  asserted  in  the  letter  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus :  "  Nihil  enim  hinc 
6oni  sperandum,  eo  quod  judices  omnes  auro  confidant."  ..."  Sic  enim 
potent  .iEgyptius  omnes  excaecare  muneribus  suis."  — Epist.  Legat.  p.  746. 


246  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

cause  of  Cyril,  to  propitiate  all  the  courtiers,  and,  if 
possible,  to  satisfy  their  rapacity.1  The  females  of  the 
court  were  to  be  solicited  with  the  utmost  importu- 
nity ;  the  monks,  especially  the  Abbot  Dalmatius,  and 
Eutyches  (afterwards  himself  an  heresiarch),  were  to 
overawe  the  feeble  Emperor  by  all  the  terrors  of  re- 
ligion, and  by  no  means  neglect  to  impress  the  Lords 
of  the  Bedchamber  with  the  same  sentiments.  They 
were  to  be  lavish  of  money ;  already  enormous  sums 
had  been  sent  from  Egypt;  1500  pounds  of  gold  had 
been  borrowed  of  Count  Ammonius ;  and  the  wealth 
of  the  Church  of  Constantinople  was  to  be  as  prodi- 
gally devoted  to  the  cause.  Ministers  were  to  be  de- 
graded, more  obsequious  ones  raised  to  their  posts  by 
the  influence  of  Pulcheria,  in  order  to  strengthen  the 
pure  doctrine,  "  the  pure  doctrine  of  Christ  Jesus  !"2 

Theodosius,  weary  of  the  strife,  dissolved  the  meet- 
Synod  of  mS  at  Chalcedon,  and  thus  the  Council  of 
aJSJtod™  Ephesus,  which  had  assumed  the  dignity  of 
A.D.  48i.  ^e  third  Ecumenical  Council,  was  at  an 
end.  All,  however,  was  still  unreconciled  hatred  and 
confusion.  The  Oriental  Bishops,  as  they  returned 
home,  found  the  churches  at  Ancyra  and  other  cities 
of  Asia  Minor  closed  against  them,  as  being  under  an 

1  Eunapius,  the  heathen,  gives  a  frightful  picture  of  the  venality  of  th« 
court  of  Pulcheria.    See  the  new  fragment  in  Niebuhr's  Byzantine  histo- 
rians, p.  97. 

2  The  Letter  in  the  Synodicon.    The  Latin  is  very  bad ;  in  some  parts 
unintelligible.    A  few  sentences  must  be  given:  —  "Et  Dominum  nieum 
sanctissimum  abbatem  roga  ut  Imperatorem  mandet,  terribili  cum  conjura- 
tione  constringens,  et  ut  cubicularios  omnes  ita  constringat.  .  .  .  Sed  de 
tua  Ecclesia  pnesta  avaritiae  quorum  nosti,  ne  Alexandrinorum  Ecclesiam 
contristent.  .  .  .  Festinet  autem  Sanctitas  tua  rogare  Dominam  Pulche- 
riam,  ut  facial  Dominum  Lausuin  intrare  et  Praepositum  fieri,  ut  Chrysore- 
tis  potentia  dissolvatur,  et  sic  dogma  nostrum  roboretur.    Alioquin  semper 
tribulandi  sunms." 


CHAP.  IH.  SYNOD  OF  TARSUS.  247 

interdict.  They  met  together,  on  the  other  hand,  at 
Tarsus,  and  afterwards  at  Antioch,  con-  synod  of 
demned  the  twelve  articles  of  Cyril,  con-  A.D.  43&. 
firmed  the  deposition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon,  and  in- 
cluded under  their  ban  the  seven  Bishops,  their  antag- 
onists at  Chalcedon.  Maximian  ventured  on  the  bold 
step  of  deposing  four  Nestorian  Bishops.  The  strife 
was  hardly  allayed  by  the  vast  mass  of  letters  J  which 
distracted  and  perplexed  the  world ;  there  was  scarcely 
a  distinguished  Prelate  who  did  not  mingle  in  the  fray. 
Theodosius  himself  interfered  at  length  in  the  office  of 
conciliation.  Misdoubting,  however,  the  extent  of  the 
Imperial  authority,  which  had  so  manifestly  failed  in 
controlling  this  contest  into  peace,  he  cultivated  the 
more  potent  intercession  of  the  famous  Simeon  Stylites : 
the  prayers  of  the  holy  "  Martyr  in  the  air "  might 
effect  that  which  the  Emperor  had  in  vain  sought  by 
his  despotic  edicts.  John  of  Antioch  and  his  party 
deputed  Paul,  the  aged  Bishop  of  Emesa,  to  Alexan- 
dria, to  negotiate  a  reconciliation.  Paul  bore  with 
him  a  formulary  agreed  upon  at  Antioch,  the  subscrip- 
tion to  which  by  Cyril  was  the  indispensable  prelimi- 
nary of  peace.  On  the  acceptance  of  this  formulary, 
and  the  consent  of  Cyril  to  anathematize  ah1  who 
should  assert  that  the  Godhead  had  suffered,  or  that 
there  was  one  nature  of  the  Godhead  and  the  Man- 
hood, he  and  the  Orientals  would  revoke  the  sentence 
of  excommunication  against  Cyril.2 

But  Paul  of  Emesa,  amiably  eager  for   peace,  and 
not  insensible  to  the  dignity  of  appearing  as  Treaty  of 
arbiter  between  these  two  great  factions,  was  peace> 

1  They  occupy  page  after  page  of  the  great  Collection  of  the  Councils. 

2  Ibas.  Epist  ad  Maron.  in  Synodico. 


248  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  EL 

no  match  for  the  subtlety  of  Cyril.  Cyril  was  ill  at  the 
time  of  Paul's  arrival,  and  some  time  elapsed  in  fruit- 
less negotiation.  At  length,  after  an  ambiguous  assent 
to  the  formulary  of  Antioch  by  Cyril,  a  treaty  was  con- 
cluded, in  which  Paul  unquestionably  exceeded  his 
powers.  But  no  sooner  were  the  terms  agreed  upon 
than  the  doors  of  the  Alexandrian  churches  flew  open, 
and  the  contending  parties  vied  with  each  other  in  flat- 
tering homilies.1  At  first  the  Orientals  were  startled 
at  what  appeared  the  unwarrantable  concessions  of 
Paul :  "  it  was  a  peace,"  in  the  language  of  one, 
"  which  filled  us  with  confusion  of  face  and  apprehen- 
sion of  the  just  judgment  of  God."  2  The  more  vio 
lent  of  Cyril's  friends  were  equally  displeased  with  the 
event.  Isidore  of  Pelusium  openly  reproached  him 
with  his  time-serving  concessions  and  with  the  recanta- 
tion of  his  own  doctrines.3 

After  some  further  contest,  the  peace  negotiated  in 
Alexandria  was  ratified  at  Antioch.  The  Orientals 
yielded  their  assent  to  the  deposition  of  Nestorius,  the 
condemnation  of  his  doctrines,  and  acknowledged  the 

*  C 

legitimate  nomination  of  his  successor  Maximianus  in 

i  See  the  three  homilies  of  Paul,  and  one  of  Cyril. 

*  Epist.  Theodoret.  Cyren.  ad  finem. 

•  Isidor.  Pelus.  Epist.  ad  Cyrill.    Facundus  de  Trib.  Capit.  xi.  9.    Isidore 
of  Pelusium  was  no  friend  of  Cyril.    From  the  first  he  saw  through  hia 
character.    During  the  Council  of  Ephesus  he  solemnly  admonished  hia 
bishop  in  terms  like  these:  "  Strong  favor  is  not  keensighted,  hate  is  utterly 
blind:  keep  thyself  unsullied  by  both  these  faults:  pass  no  hasty  judg- 
ments: try  every  cause  with  strict  justice.  .  .     Many  of  those  summoned 
to  Ephesus  mock  at  thee  (of  nufujdovai)  as  one  who  seeks  only  to  glut  his 
private  revenge,  and  has  no  real  zeal  for  the  orthodoxy  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.    He,  they  say,  is  the  sister's  son  of  Theophilus,  and  follows  the  ex- 
ample of  his  uncle.    As  he  manifestly  gave  free  scope  to  his  animosity 
•gainst  the  God-inspired  and  God-beloved  ('hry-M-ium,  so  does  this  man 
igainst  Nestorius,"  &c.  &c.  —  Isid.  Pelus.  Epist.  i.  310.    See  also  the  Le 
ters  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  311,  and  to  Cyril,  323,  324,  370. 


CHAP.  LEI.  TKEATY  OF  PEACE.  249 

the  see  of  Constantinople.  On  the  other  hand  Cyril, 
though  spared  the  public  disavowal  of  his  own  tenets, 
had  purchased,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  his  restoration 
to  communion  with  the  Orientals  by  a  dishonorable 
compromise  of  his  bolder  opinions. 

It  was  a  peace  between  John  of  Antioch  and  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  not  between  the  contending  Peace  hollow 
factions,  which  became  more  and  more  es- and  briefc 
tranged  and  separated  from  each  other.  But  the  peace 
between  John  and  Cyril  soon  grew  into  a  close  alli- 
ance, and  John  began  to  persecute  his  old  associates. 
The  first  victim  was  Nestorius  himself,  now  sunk  to  so 
low  a  state  of  insignificance  as  to  expose  him  to  the 
suspicion  and  hatred  of  his  enemies,  without  retaining 
the  attachment  of  his  former  friends.  His  obscure  fate 
contrasts  strongly  with  the  vitality  of  his  doctrines. 
By  an  Imperial  edict,  obtained  not  improbably  by  John 
of  Antioch,  who  was  weary  of  a  troublesome  neighbor, 
Nestorius  in  his  old  age  was  exiled  to  the  Egyptian 
Oasis,  as  the  place  most  completely  cut  off  from  man- 
kind, so  that  the  contagion  of  his  heresy  might  be  con- 
fined to  the  narrowest  limits.  Even  there  he  did  not 
find  repose.  The  Oasis  was  overrun  by  a  tribe  of  bar- 
barous Africans,  the  Bleinmyes.  These  savages,  out  of 
respect  or  compassion,  released  their  aged  captive,  who 
found  himself  in  Panopolis  ;  and,  having  signified  his 
arrival  and  his  adventures  to  the  Prefect  of  the  city, 
expressed  his  hope  that  the  Roman  Government  would 
not  refuse  him  that  compassion  which  he  had  found 
among  the  savage  heathen.  The  heretic  reckoned 
too  much  on  human  sympathies.  He  was  hastily  de- 
spatched under  a  guard  of  soldiers  to  Elephantine,  the 
very  border  of  the  Roman  territory,  and  recalled  as  has- 


250  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  O. 

tily.  These  journeys  wore  out  his  old  and  infirm  body  ; 
and,  after  a  vain  appeal  to  the  court  to  be  spared  a  fourth 
exile,  which  is  mocked  by  the  ecclesiastical  historian  as 
a  new  proof  of  his  obstinacy,  he  sunk  into  the  grave. 
But  there  the  charity  of  the  historian  Evagrius  does 
not  leave  him  in  peace :  he  relates  with  undisguised 
satisfaction  a  report  that  his  tongue  was  eaten  with 
worms ;  and  from  these  temporal  pains  he  passed  to  the 
eternal  and  immitigable  pains  of  hell.1 

The  three  great  Sees  were  now  in  possession  of  the 
A.D.  434.  anti-Nestorians.  Cyril  ruled  in  Alexandria  ; 
Maxim ian  had  been  succeeded  in  Constantinople  by 
Proclus,  the  ancient  and  inveterate  antagonist  of  Nes- 
torius ;  and  John  in  Antioch.  But,  besides  the  Nes- 
torians,  there  was  a  strong  anti-Cyrillian  party  among 
the  Orientals,  the  former  allies  of  John  of  Antioch, 
who  protested  against  the  terms  of  the  peace.  They 
maintained  the  uncanonical  deposition  of  Nestorius, 
though  they  disclaimed  his  theology  ;  they  asserted  the 
unrepealed  excommunication  of  Cyril.  Alexander, 
Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  declared  that  he  would  suffer 
death  or  exile  rather  than  submit  to  Church  communion 
with  the  Egyptians  on  such  terms ;  and  declared  that 
John  must  be  lost  to  all  sense  of  shame.  On  this  prin- 
ciple the  leading  Bishops  of  nine  provinces  revolted 
against  their  Patriarchs,  —  the  two  Syrias,  the  two  Ci- 
licias,  Bithynia,  Moesia,  Thessalia,  Isauria,  the  second 
Cappadocia.  They  even  ventured  to  send  a  protest  to 
Sixtus,  who  had  now  succeeded  Celestine  in  the  See  of 
Rome,  in  which  they  inveighed  against  the  versatility 
and  perfidy  of  John  of  Antioch.  But  an  edict,  ob- 
tained by  the  two  dominant  influences  in  the  Byzan, 
1  Evagrius,  H.  E.  i.  6. 


CHAP.  III.  NESTORIANISM  PROSCRIBED.  251 

tine  court,  that  of  gold l  and  that  of  the  Princess  Pulche- 
ria,  armed  John  with  powers  to  expel  the  refractory 
Prelates  from  their  sees ;  and  John  had  no  scruples  in 
punishing  that  mutinous  spirit  which  he  had  encouraged 
so  long.  Nor  were  these  Bishops  prepared  to  suffer 
the  martyrdom  of  degradation.  Andrew  of  Samosata, 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  Helladius  of  Tarsus,  the  leaders 
of  that  party,  submitted  to  the  hard  necessity.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  the  milder  terms  enforced  upon 
them  only  required  communion  with  John  ;  they  were 
not  compelled  to  give  their  formal  assent  to  the  depo- 
sition of  Nestorius,  or  to  withdraw  their  protest  against 
the  twelve  articles  of  Cyril,  or  to  repeal  the  anathema 
against  him.  Some,  however,  were  more  firm ;  Mele- 
tius  of  Mopsuestia  was  forcibly  expelled  from  his  city 
by  a  rude  soldiery,  and  fourteen  other  Bishops  bore 
degradation  rather  than  submit  to  these  galling  conces- 
sions. 

At  the  same  time  that  Nestorius  was  banished  from 
Antioch,  an  Imperial  edict  proscribed  Nesto-  Nestorianism 
nanism.2  The  followers  of  Nestorius  were  Proscribed- 
to  be  branded  by  the  odious  name  of  Simonians,  as 
apostates  from  God ;  his  books  were  prohibited,  and, 
when  found,  were  to  be  publicly  burned  ;  whoever  held 
a  conventicle  of  the  sect  was  condemned  to  confiscation 
of  goods.  But  however  oppressed  in  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, Nestorianism  was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  Syrian 
mind  to  be  extinguished  either  by  Imperial  or  by  ecclesi- 

1  "  Audivimus  olim    quod  multum    sategerit  Venus,  qui  pro  Joanne 
Constantinopoli  latitat,  et  aurwn  multum  distribuerit  aliquibus  ut  posset 
obtinere  sacram,  quae  nos  cogeret  aut  communicare  Joanni,  aut  exire  ab 
ecclesiis:   quod  etiam  veraciter  contigit." — Meletii  Epist.  ad  Maximin. 
Anagarb. 

2  Codex  Theodos.  de  Haeret.  xvi.  v.  66. 


252  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

astical  persecution.  It  took  refuge  beyond  the  frontiers, 
among  the  Christians  of  Persia.  It  even  overleaped 
the  stern  boundary  of  Magianism,  and  carried  the  Gos- 
pel into  parts  of  the  East  as  yet  impenetrated  by  Chris- 
tian missions.  The  farther  it  travelled  eastwards  the 
more  intelligible  and  more  congenial  to  the  general  sen- 
timent became  its  Eastern  element,  the  absolute  impas- 
sibility of  the  Godhead.  Even  in  the  Roman  East  it 
maintained,  in  many  places  a  secret,  in  some  an  open 
resistance  to  authority.1  The  great  Syrian  School, 
that  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Diodorus  of  Tar- 
sus, the  most  popular  of  the  Syrian  theologians,  were 
found  to  have  held  opinions  nearly  the  same  with  those 
of  Nestorius.  Cyril  and  Proclus  demanded  the  pro- 
scription of  these  dangerous  writers ;  but  the  Eastern 
Prelates,  those  of  Edessa,  and  the  successors  of  Theo- 
dore, indignantly  refused  submission.  A  new  contro- 
versy arose,  which  was  not  laid  to  rest,  but  was  rather 
kept  alive  by  the  new  heresy  which,  during  the  next 
twenty  years,  confused  the  Eastern  Churches  and  de- 
manded a  fourth  General  Council  —  Eutychianism. 
A.D.  432-440.  Sixtus,  the  successor  of  Celestine,  had 
Aug.  is!  ruled  in  Rome  during  these  later  transactions 
in  the  East ;  he  was  to  be  succeeded  by  one  of  greater 
name. 

1  Gibbon,  at  the  close  of  his  47th  chapter,  has  drawn  one  of  his  full,  rap- 
id, and  brilliant  descriptions  of  the  Oriental  conquests  of  the  Xestorians, 
from  Assemanni,  Renaudot,  La  Croze,  and  all  other  authorities  extant  in 
his  day.  Nestorianism  and  its  kindred  or  rival  sects  retired  far  beyond  the 
sphere  of  Latin  Christianity ;  it  was  not  till  the  Portuguese  conquests  in  the 
East  that  they  came  into  contact  and  collision.  The  very  recent  works  of 
Layard  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Badger  reveal  to  us  the  present  state  of  the  settle- 
ments of  the  Nestorians  —  the  latter,  their  creed  and  discipline  —  in  th» 
neighborhood  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates. 


CHAP.  IV.  LEO  THE  GREAT.  253 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LEO  THE  GREAT. 

THE  Pontificate  of  Leo  the  Great  is  one  of  the 
epochs  in  the  history  of  Latin,  or  rather  of  Leo  the 
universal  Christianity.  Christendom,  wher-  x.^flio. 
ever  mindful  of  its  divine  origin,  and  of  its  Aug' 
proper  humanizing  and  hallowing  influence,  might 
turn  away  in  shame  from  these  melancholy  and  dis- 
graceful contests  in  the  East.  On  the  throne  of  Rome 
alone,  of  all  the  greater  sees,  did  religion  maintain  its 
majesty,  its  sanctity,  its  piety;  and,  if  it  demanded 
undue  deference,  the  world  would  not  be  inclined 
rigidly  to  question  pretensions  supported  as  well  by 
such  conscious  power  as  by  such  singular  and  unim- 
peachable virtue ;  and  by  such  inestimable  benefits 
conferred  on  Rome,  on  the  Empire,  on  civilization. 
Once  Leo  was  supposed  to  have  saved  Rome  from 
the  most  terrible  of  barbarian  conquerors ;  a  second 
time  he  mitigated  the  horrors  of  her  fall  before  the 
King  of  the  Vandals.  During  his  pontificate,  Leo 
is  the  only  great  name  in  the  Empire ;  it  might  almost 
seem  in  the  Christian  world.  The  Imperial  Sover- 
eignty might  be  said  to  have  expired  with  Theodosius 
the  Great.  Women  ruled  in  Ravenna  and  in  Con- 
stantinople, and  their  more  masculine  abilities,  even 
their  virtues,  reflected  a  deeper  shame  on  the  names 
of  Theodosius  II.  and  Valentinia'n  III.,  the  boy  Sov- 


254  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

ereigns  of  the  East  and  West.  Even  after  the  death 
of  Theodosius,  Marcian  reigned  in  the  East,  as  the 
husband  of  Pulcheria.  In  the  West  the  suspected 
fidelity  impaired  the  power,  as  it  lowered  the  char- 
acter of  Aetius;  his  inhuman  murder  deprived  the 
A.D.  430.  Empire  of  its  last  support;  and  the  Count 
Boniface,  the  friend  of  Augustine,  in  his 
fatal  revenge,  opened  Africa  to  the  desolating  Vandal. 
Leo  stood  equally  alone  and  superior  in  the  Christian 
world.  Two  years  before  the  accession  of  Leo, 
Augustine  had  died.  He  had  not  lived  to  witness 
the  capture  and  ruin  of  Hippo,  his  episcopal  city. 
A.D.445.  The  fifth  year  after  the  accession  of  Leo, 
died  Cyril  of  Alexandria;  Nestorius  survived,  but 
in  exile,  his  relentless  rival.  Cyril  was  succeeded 
by  Dioscorus,  who  seemed  to  have  inherited  all  which 
was  odious  in  Cyril,  with  far  inferior  polemic  ability ; 
afterwards,  an  Eutychian  heretic,  and  hardly  to  be 
acquitted  of  the  murder  of  his  rival,  Flavianus.  This 
future  victim  of  the  enmity  of  Dioscorus  filled  the  see 
of  Constantinople.  Domnus,  a  name  of  no  great  dis- 
tinction, was  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  In  the  West  there 
are  few,  either  ecclesiastics  or  others,  who  even  aspire 
to  a  doubtful  fame,  such  as  Prosper,  the  poet  of  the 
Pelagian  controversy,  and  Cassianus,  the  legislator  of 
the  Western  monasteries. 

Leo,  like  most  of  his  great  predecessors  and  succes- 
sors, was  a  Roman.  He  was  early  devoted  to  the 
service  of  the  Church ;  and  so  high  was  the  opinion 
of  his  abilities,  that  even  as  an  acolyte  he  was  sent 
to  Africa  with  letters  condemnatory  of  Pelagianism. 
By  the  great  African  Prelates,  Aurelius  and  St.  Au- 
gustine, he  was  confirmed  in  his  strong  aversion  to 


CHAP.  IV.  ELECTION  OF  LEO.  255 

those  doctrines,  which  might  seem  irreconcilable  with 
his  ardent  piety.  He  urged  upon  Pope  Sixtus  the 
persecution  of  the  unfortunate  Julianus.1  When  Leo 
was  yet  only  a  Deacon,  Cassianus  dedicated  to  him  his 
work  on  the  Incarnation.  At  the  decease  of  Pope 
Sixtus,  Leo  was  absent  on  a  civil  mission,  Election  of 
the  importance  of  which  shows  the  lofty  ** 
estimate  of  his  powers.  It  was  no  less  than  an  at- 
tempt to  reconcile  the  two  rival  generals,  Aetius  and 
Albinus,  whose  fatal  quarrel  hazarded  the  dominion 
of  Rome  in  Gaul.  There  was  no  delay ;  all  Rome, 
clergy,  senate,  people,  by  acclamation,  raised  the 
absent  Leo  to  the  vacant  see.  Leo  disdained  the 
customary  hypocrisy  of  compelling  the  electors  to 
force  the  dignity  upon  him.  With  the  self-confidence 
of  a  commanding  mind  he  assumed  the  office,2  in  the 
pious  assurance  that  God  would  give  him  strength  to 
fulfil  the  arduous  duties  so  imposed.  Leo  was  a  Roman 
in  sentiment  as  in  birth.  All  that  survived  of  Rome, 
of  her  unbounded  ambition,  her  inflexible  persever- 
ance, her  dignity  in  defeat,  her  haughtiness  of  lan- 
guage, her  belief  in  her  own  eternity,  and  in  her 
indefeasible  title  to  universal  dominion,  her  respect  for 
traditionary  and  written  law,  and  of  unchangeable 
custom,  might  seem  concentred  in  him  alone.3  The 

1  "  His  insidiis  Sixtus  Papa,  diaconi  Leonis  hortatu,  vigilanter  occurrens, 
nullum  aditum  pestiferis  conatibus  patere  permisit,  et  .  .  .  omnes  catho- 
licos  de  rejectione  fallacis  bestise  gaudere  fecit." — Prosper,  in  Chronic. 

2  "  Etsi  necessarium  est  trepidare  de  merito,  religiosum  est  gaudere  de 
dono  .  .  .  ne  sub  magnitudine  gratia?  succumbat  infirmus,  dabit  virtutem, 
qui  contulit  dignitatem."  —  Sermo  11. 

8  Nothing  can  be  stronger  than  the  Popes'  declarations  that  even  they  are 
strictly  subordinate  to  the  law  of  the  church.  "  Contra  statuta  patrum 
concedere  aliquid  vel  mutare  nee  hujus  quidem  sedis  potest  auctoritas." 
Zos.  Epist.  sub  ann.  417.  "  Sumus  subject!  canonibus.  qui  canonuin  prae- 
cepta  servamus."  —  Cosiest,  ad  Episc.  Ulyr.  "Privilegia  sanctorum  pa- 


256  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

onion  of  the  Churchman  and  the  Roman  is  singularly 
displayed  in  his  sermon  on  the  day  of  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul ;  their  conjoint  authority  was  that  double 
title  to  obedience  on  which  he  built  his  claim  to  power, 
but  chiefly  as  successor  of  St.  Peter,  for  whom  and 
for  his  ecclesiastical  heirs  he  asserted  a  proto-Apostolic 
dignity.  From  Peter  and  through  Peter  all  the  other 
Apostles  derived  their  power.  No  less  did  he  assert 
the  predestined  perpetuity  of  Rome,  who  had  only 
obtained  her  temporal  autocracy  to  prepare  the  way, 
and  as  a  guarantee,  for  her  greater  spiritual  supremacy. 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  the  Romulus  and  Remus 
of  Christian  Rome.  Pagan  Rome  had  been  the  head 
of  the  heathen  world ;  the  empire  of  her  divine  re- 
ligion was  to  transcend  that  of  her  worldly  dominion. 
Her  victories  had  subdued  the  earth  and  the  sea, 
but  she  was  to  rule  still  more  widely  than  she  had 
by  her  wars,  through  the  peaceful  triumphs  of  her 
faith.1  It  was  because  Rome  was  the  capital  of  the 
world  that  the  chief  of  the  Apostles  was  chosen  to 
be  her  teacher,  in  order  that  from  the  head  of  the 
world  the  light  of  truth  might  be  revealed  over  all 
the  earth. 

The  haughtiness  of  the  Roman  might  seem  to  pre- 
dominate over  the  meekness  of  the  Christian.  Leo 
is  indignant  that  slaves  were  promoted  to  the  dignity 
of  the  sacerdotal  office ;  not  merely  did  he  require 

tram  canonibus  institute  et  Xiceje  synodi  fixa  decretis  nulla  po«.«unt  impro- 
bitate  convelli,  nulla  novitate  violari."  —  S.  Leo.  Epist.  78 :  compar 
80.  "Quoniam  contra  statnta  paternorum  canonum  nihil  cuiquam  audire 
conceditur,  ita  si  quis  diversum  aliquid  decernere  relit,  se  potius  minuet, 
quam  ilia  corrumpat;  quae  si  (ut  oportet)  a  sanctis  Pontificibus  observantur 
per  universas  ecclesias,  tranquilla  erit  pax  et  firma  concordia."  —  I. 

1  "  Per  sacram  beati  Petri  sedem  caput  orbis  effecta,  latius  pnesiderea 
religione  divina  quam  dominatione  terrena."  — Serm.  Ixxxiii. 


CHAP.  IY.  ELECTION  OF  LEO.  257 

the  consent  of  the  master,  lest  the  Church  should 
become  a  refuge  for  contumacious  slaves,  and  the  es- 
tablished rights  of  property  be  invaded,  but  the  base- 
ness of  the  slave  brought  discredit  on  the  majesty  of 
the  priestly  office.1 

Though  Leo's  magnificent  vision  of  the  universal 
dominion  of  Rome  and  of  Christianity  blended  the  in- 
domitable ambition  of  the  ancient  Roman  with  the  faith 
of  the  Christian,  the  world  might  seem  rather  darkening 
towards  the  ruin  of  both.  Leo  may  be  imagined  as 
taking  a  calm  and  comprehensive  survey  of  the  ardu- 
ous work  in  which  he  was  engaged,  the  state  of  the 
various  provinces  over  which  he  actuaUy  exercised,  or 
aspired  to  supremacy.  In  Rome  heathenism  appears, 
as  a  religion,  extinct ;  but  heretics,  especially  the  most 
odious  of  all,  the  Manicheans,  were  in  great  numbers. 
In  Rome,  Leo  ruled  not  merely  with  Apostolic  author- 
ity, but  took  upon  himself  the  whole  Apostolic  func- 
tion. He  was  the  first  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  whose 
popular  sermons  have  come  down  to  posterity.  The 
Bishops  of  Constantinople  seem  to  have  been  the  great 
preachers  of  their  city.  Pulpit  oratory  was  their  rec- 
ommendation to  the  see,  and  the  great  instrument 
of  their  power.2  Chrysostom  was  not  the  first,  though 

1 "  Tanquam  servilis  vilitas  hunc  honorem  capiat.  .  .  .  Duplex  itaque  in 
hac  parte  reatus  est,  quod  et  sacrum  ministerium  talis  consortii  vilitate  pol- 
luilur,  et  dominorum  .  .  .  jura  solvuntur." — Epist.  iv. 

2  Sozomen  asserts  that  it  was  a  peculiar  usage  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
that  neither  the  bishop  nor  any  one  else  preached  in  the  Church  ovre  6e  6 
enioKOTTOG  ovre  o^Uof  nf  hddds  ^  EKK^rjaiag  diduaicei.  H  E.  vii.  19. 
This  statement,  defended  by  Valesius,  is  vehemently  impugned  by  many 
Roman  Catholic  writers.  Quesnel  confines  it  to  sermons  on  particular 
occasions.  But  the  assertion  of  Sozomen  is  clearly  general,  and  con- 
trasted with  the  usage  of  Alexandria,  where  the  bishop  was  the  only 
preacher.  If  this  be  true,  the  usage  must  have  been  subsequent  to  the 
beginning  of  Arianism,  perhaps  grew  out  of  it.  The  presumption  of 

VOL.  I.  17 


258  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

the  greatest,  who  had  been  summoned  to  that  high 
dignity,  for  the  fame  of  his  eloquence.  From  the 
pulpit  Nestorius  had  waged  war  against  his  adver- 
saries. Leo,  no  doubt,  felt  his  strength ;  he  could 
cope  with  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  make  the 
pulpit  what  the  rostrum  had  been  of  old.  His  ser- 
mons singularly  contrast  with  the  florid,  desultory, 
and  often  imaginative  and  impassioned  style  of  the 
Greek  preachers.  They  are  brief,  simple,  severe ; 
without  fancy,  without  metaphysic  subtlety,  without 
passion :  it  is  the  Roman  Censor  animadverting  with 
nervous  majesty  on  the  vices  of  the  people ;  the 
Roman  Praetor  dictating  the  law,  and  delivering  with 
authority  the  doctrine  of  the  faith.  They  are  singu- 
larly Christian  —  Christian  as  dwelling  almost  exclu- 
sively on  Christ,  his  birth,  his  passion,  his  resurrection  ; 
only  polemic  so  far  as  called  upon  by  the  prevailing 
controversies  to  assert  with  especial  emphasis  the  per- 
fect deity  and  the  perfect  manhood  of  Christ.1  Either 

ignorance  or  error  in  Sozomen  arises  out  of  the  generality  of  his  state- 
ment, that  there  was  in  fact  no  preaching  in  Rome.  The  style  of  Leo'a 
sermons,  brief,  simple,  expository,  la  almost  conclusive  against  any  long 
cultivation  of  pulpit-oratory.  They  are  evidently  the  first  efforts  o  Chris- 
tian rhetoric — the  earliest,  if  vigorous,  sketches  of  a  young  art.  Com- 
pare page  21. 

1  One  class  were  what  may  be  described  as  charity-sermons.  At  a  cer- 
tain period  of  the  year,  collections  were  made  for  the  poor  throughout  all 
the  regions  of  Rome.  This  usage  had  been  appointed  to  supersede  some 
ancient  superstition,  it  is  supposed  the  Ludi  Apollinares,  held  on  the  6th  of 
July.  The  alms  of  the  devout  were  to  surpass  in  munificence  the  offerings 
of  the  heathen.  These  collections  seem  to  have  replaced  in  some  degree  the 
Rportula  of  the  wealthy,  and  the  ostentations  largesses  of  the  Emperors. 
On  alms-giving  Leo  insists  with  great  energy.  It  is  an  atonement  for  sin. 
—  Serm.  vii.  In  another  place,  "  eleemosyn«  peccata  delent.''  Facing, 
without  alms,  is  an  affliction  of  the  flesh,  no  sanctification  of  the  ?oul. 
There  is  a  beautiful  precept  urging  the  people  to  seek  out  the  more  modest 
of  the  indigent,  who  would  not  beg:  Sunt  enim  qui  pal  am  poscere  ea, 
quibus  indigent,  erubescunt;  et  malunt  miseria  tacitae  egestatis  affligi, 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  MANICHEES.  259 

the  practical  mind  of  Leo  disdained,  or  in  Rome  the 
age  had  not  yet  fully  expanded  the  legendary  and 
poetic  religion,  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  and  the 
Saints.  St.  Peter  is  not  so  much  a  sacred  object  of 
worship  as  the  great  ancestor  from  whom  the  Roman 
Pontiff  has  inherited  supreme  power.  One  martyr 
alone  is  commemorated,  and  that  with  nothing  mythic 
or  miraculous  in  the  narrative  —  the  Roman  Lauren- 
tius,  by  whose  death  Rome  is  glorified,  as  Jerusalem 
by  that  of  Stephen.1 

Leo  condemns  the  whole  race  of  heretics,  from 
Arius  down  to  Eutyches ;  but  the  more  immediate, 
more  dangerous,  more  hateful  adversaries  of  the  Ro- 
man faith  were  the  Manicheans.  That  sect,  in  vain 
proscribed,  persecuted,  deprived  of  the  privilege  of 
citizens,  placed  out  of  the  pale  of  the  law  by  The  j^^, 
successive  Imperial  edicts  ;  under  the  abhor-  chees- 
rence  not  merely  of  the  orthodox,  but  of  almost  all 
other  Christians ;  were  constantly  springing  up  in  all 
quarters  of  Christendom  with  a  singularly  obstinate 
vitality.  At  this  time  they  unquestionably  formed  a 
considerable  sect  in  Rome  and  in  other  cities  of  Italy. 
Manicheism,  according  to  Leo,  summed  up  in  itself  all 
which  was  profane  in  Paganism,  blind  in  carnal  Juda- 
ism, unlawful  in  magic,  sacrilegious,  and  blasphemous 
in  all  other  heresies.2  It  does  not  appear  how  far  the 
Manicheism  of  the  West  had  retained  the  wilder  and 
more  creative  system  of  its  Oriental  founder ;  or,  sub- 
dued to  the  more  practical  spirit  of  the  West,  adhered 

quam  publica  petitione  confundi  .  .  .  paupertati  eorum  consultum  fuerit  et 
pudori."  —  Serm.  ix.  p.  32-3.  Leo  denounces  usury  —  "foenus  pecuniae, 
funus  animse." —  Serm.  xvii. 

1  Sena.  Ixxxv. 

2  Serm.  xvi. 


260  LATE*  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

only  to   the  broader   anti-Materialistic   and   Dualistic 

•r 

tenets.  But  these  more  general  principles  were  obnox- 
ious in  the  highest  degree  to  the  whole  Christianity  of 
the  age.  Where  the  great  rivalship  of  the  contending 
parties  in  Christendom  was  to  assert  most  peremptorily, 
and  to  define  most  distinctly,  the  Godhead  and  the  hu- 
manity of  the  Redeemer,  nothing  could  be  more  uni- 
versally abhorrent  than  a  creed  which  made  the  human 
person  of  the  Redeemer  altogether  unreal,  and  was  at 
least  vague  and  obscure  as  to  his  divinity :  which  in 
that  Redeemer  was  clearly  extraneous  and  subordinate 
to  the  great  Primal  Immaterial  Unity.  All  parties 
would  unite  in  rejecting  these  total  aliens  from  the 
Christian  faith.1  But  Leo  had  stronger  reasons  for 
his  indignation  against  the  Roman  Manichi-ans. 
Whether  the  asceticism  of  the  sect  in  general  had  re- 
coiled into  a  kind  of  orgiastic  libertinism,  or  whether 
the  polluting  atmosphere  of  Rome,  in  which  no  doubt 
much  of  pagan  licentiousness  must  have  remained,  and 
which  would  shroud  itself  in  Christian,  as  of  old  in 
pagan  mysteries,  the  evidence  of  revolting  immoralities 
is  more  strong  and  conclusive  against  these  Roman 
Manicheans  than  against  any  other  branch  of  this  con- 
demned race  at  other  times.  The  public,  it  might 
seem  the  ceremonial  violation  of  a  maiden  of  tender 
years,  in  one  of  their  religious  meetings,  was  witnessed, 
it  was  said,  by  the  confession  of  the  perpetrator  of  the 
crime ;  by  that  of  the  elect  who  were  present ;  by  the 
Bishop,  who  sanctioned  the  abominable  wicked 
The  investigation  took  place  before  a  great  assembly 

1 8.  Leo,  Serm.  xvi.  and  xlii. 

*  Epist  ad  Turib.  xiv.    Epist.  viii.  Rescript.  Valentin.    "  Coram  Senatn 
amplissimo  manifest*  ipsorom  confessione  patefacta  sunt. 


CHAP.  IV.    DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  AFRICAN  CHURCH.      261 

of  the  principal  of  the  Roman  priesthood,  of  Oct.  10, 443. 
the  great  civil  officers,  of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  peo- 
ple. We  cannot  wonder  that  the  penalties  fell  indis- 
criminately upon  the  whole  sect.  Some,  indeed,  were 
admitted  to  penance,  on  their  forswearing  Manes  and 
all  his  impious  doctrines,  by  the  lenity  of  Leo ;  others 
were  driven  into  exile ;  still,  however,  no  capital  pun- 
ishment was  inflicted.  Leo  wrote  to  the  Jan.  444. 
Bishops  of  Italy,  exhorting  them  to  search  out  these 
pestilent  enemies  of  Christian  faith  and  virtue,  and  to 
secure  their  own  flocks  from  the  secret  contamination. 
The  Emperor  Valentinian  III.,  no  doubt  by  the  advice 
of  Leo,  issued  an  edict  confirmatory  of  those  laws  of 
his  predecessors  by  which  the  Manicheans  were  to  be 
banished  from  the  whole  world.  They  were  to  be 
liable  to  all  the  penalties  of  sacrilege.  It  was  a  public 
offence.  The  accusers  were  not  to  be  liable  to  the 
charge  of  delation.  It  was  a  crime  to  conceal  or  har- 
bor them.  All  Manicheans  were  to  be  expelled  from 
the  army,  and  not  permitted  to  inhabit  cities  ;  they 
could  neither  make  testaments  nor  receive  bequests. 
The  cause  of  the  severity  of  the  law  was  their  flagrant 
and  disgraceful  immorality. 

If  Italy  did  not  folly  acknowledge,  it  did  not  contest 
the  assumed  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See.  Leo  writes 
not  only  to  the  Bishops  of  Tuscany  and  Campania,  but 
to  those  of  Aquileia  and  of  Sicily,  as  under  his  imme- 
diate jurisdiction. 

Africa   was   among   the  provinces  of  the  Western 
Empire.     It  was  a  part  of  the  Latin  world  —  Africa. 
an  indispensable  part  —  as  being  now,  since  the  Egyp- 
tian supplies  were  alienated  to  the  East,  with  Sicily, 
the  sole  granary  of  Rome  and  of  Italy.     If  the  patri- 


262  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II 

archate  of  Rome  was  coextensive  with  the  Western 
Empire,  Africa  belonged  to  her  jurisdiction,  and  the 
closest  connection  still  subsisted  between  these  parts  of 
Latin  Christendom.  Latin  had  from  the  first  been  the 
language  of  African  theology ;  and  of  the  five  or  six 
greatest  names  among  the  earlier  Western  fathers, 
three,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  Augustine,  were  of 
those  provinces.  In  every  struggle  and  in  every  con- 
troversy Africa  had  taken  a  leading  part.  She  had 
furnished  her  martyrs  in  the  days  of  persecution ;  she 
had  contended  against  all  the  heresies  of  the  East,  and 
repudiated  the  subtle  metaphysics  of  Greek  Christen- 
dom ;  orthodoxy  had  in  general  triumphed  in  her  de- 
liberations. By  the  voice  of  St.  Augustine  she  had 
discomfited  Manicheism ;  and  it  was  her  burning  tem- 
perament which,  in  the  same  great  writer,  had  repelled 
the  colder  and  more  analytic  Pelagianism,  and  made 
the  direct,  immediate,  irresistible  action  of  divine  grace 
upon  the  soul  an  established  article  of  the  Western 
creed.  Her  councils  had  been  frequent,  and  com- 
manded general  respect;  her  bishops  were  incredibly 
numerous  in  the  inland  districts ;  and,  on  the  whole, 
Christianity  might  seem  more  completely  the  religion 
of  the  people  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  empire. 

But  the  fatal  schism  of  the  Donatists  had,  for  more 
than  a  century,  been  constantly  preying  upon  her 
strength,  and  induced  her  to  look  for  foreign  interfer- 
ence. The  orthodox  church  had,  in  her  distress,  con- 
stantly invoked  the  civil  power.  The  emperor  natu- 
rally looked  for  advice  to  the  bishops  around  him, 
especially  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  and  from  the 
earliest  period,  when  Constantine  had  referred  tin's  con- 
troversy to  a  council  of  Italian  prelates,  they  had  been 


CHAP.  IV.   DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  AFRICAN  CHURCH.       263 

thus  indirectly  the  arbiters  in  the  irreconcilable  con- 
test. For  even  down  to  the  days  of  St.  Augustine, 
and  beyond  the  Vandal  conquest  of  Africa,  the  Don- 
atists  maintained  the  strife,  raised  altar  against  altar, 
compared  the  number  of  their  bishops  with  advantage 
to  those  of  their  adversaries,  resisted  alike  the  reason- 
ings of  the  orthodox,  and  the  more  cogent  arguments 
of  the  imperial  soldiery.  The  more  desperate,  the 
more  fierce  and  obstinate  the  fanaticism.  The  ravages 
of  the  Circumcellions  were  perpetually  breaking  out  in 
some  quarter;  the  civilization  which  had  covered  the 
land,  up  to  the  borders  of  the  desert,  with  peaceful 
towns  and  villages,  so  much  promoted  by  the  increased 
cultivation  of  corn,  and  which  at  once  contributed  to 
extend  Christianity  and  was  itself  advanced  by  Chris- 
tianity, began  to  suffer  that  sad  reverse  which  was 
almost  consummated  by  the  Vandal  invasion.  The 
wild  Moorish  tribes  seemed  training  again  towards  their 
old  unsubdued  ferocity,  and  preparing,  as  it  were,  to 
sink  back,  after  two  or  three  more  centuries,  into  the 
more  congenial  state  of  marauding  Mahometan  sav- 
ages. 

But  Africa,  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  whicn 
arose  out  of  these  sanguinary  contentions,  and  the  con- 
stant demands  of  assistance  from  the  civil  power  in 
Italy,  conscious  of  her  own  intellectual  strength,  and 
proud  of  the  unimpeached  orthodoxy  of  her  ruling 
churches,  by  no  means  surrendered  her  independence. 
If  Rome  at  times  was  courted  with  promising  submis- 
siveness,  at  others  it  was  opposed  with  inflexible  obdu- 
racy. Though  Cyprian,  by  assigning  a  kind  of  pri- 
macy to  St.  Peter,  and  acknowledging  the  hereditary- 
descent  of  the  Roman  Bishop  from  the  great  apostle, 


264  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

had  tended  to  elevate  the  power  of  the  Pontiff,  yet  his 
great  name  sanctioned  likewise  almost  a  contemptuous 
resistance  to  the  Roman  ecclesiastical  authority.  The 
African  Councils  had  usually  communicated  their  de- 
crees, as  of  full  and  unquestioned  authority,  not  sub- 
mitted them  for  a  higher  sanction.  The  inflexibility 
of  the  African  Bishops  had  but  recently  awed  the 
Pelagianizing  Zosimus  back  into  orthodoxy.  Some 
events,  which  had  brought  the  African  churches  into 
direct  collision  with  the  Roman  Pontiff,  betrayed  in 
one  case  an  admission  of  his  power,  on  the  other  a 
steadfast  determination  of  resistance,  which  would  dis- 
dain to  submit  to  foreign  jurisdiction.  In  the  first, 
Augustine  himself  might  seem  to  set  the  example  of 
homage  —  opposing  only  earnest  and  deprecatory  argu- 
ments to  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.1  It  was 
the  African  usage  to  erect  small  towns,  even  villages, 
into  separate  sees.  St.  Augustine  created  a  bishopric 
in  the  insignificant  neighboring  town  of  Fussola.  He 
appointed  a  promising  disciple,  named  Anto- 


Fussoia.  nius,  to  the  office.  But,  removed  from  the 
grave  control  of  Augustine,  the  young  bishop  aban- 
doned himself  to  youthful  indulgences,  and  even  to 
violence,  rapine,  and  extortion.  He  was  condemned 
by  a  local  council;  but,  some  of  the  worst  charges 
being  insufficiently  proved,  he  was  only  sentenced  to 
make  restitution,  deprived  of  his  episcopal  power,  but 
not  degraded  from  the  dignity  of  a  bishop.  Antonius 
appealed  to  Rome  ;  he  obtained  the  support  of  the 
aged  Primate  of  Numidia,  by  the  plausible  argument 
that,  if  he  had  been  guilty  of  the  alleged  enormities, 
he  was  unworthy  of,  and  ought  to  have  been  degraded 

1  Augustin.  Epist  261. 


CHAP.  IV.    DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  AFRICAN  CHURCH.      265 

from,  the  episcopal  rank.  Boniface,  who  was  then 
Pope,  commanded  the  Numidian  bishops  to  restore 
Antonius  to  his  see,  provided  the  facts,  as  he  stated 
them,  were  true.  Antonius,  as  though  armed  with  an 
absolute  decree,  demanded  instant  obedience  from  the 
people  of  Fussola  :  he  threatened  them  with  the  Impe- 
rial troops,  whom,  it  would  seem,  he  might  summon  to 
compel  the  execution  of  the  Papal  decree.  The  peo- 
ple of  Fussola  wrote  in  the  most  humble  language  to 
the  new  Pope,  Celestine,  entreating  to  be  relieved  from 
an  oppression,  as  they  significantly  hinted,  more  griev- 
ous than  they  had  suffered  under  the  Donatist  rule, 
from  which  they  had  but  recently  passed  over  into  the 
Catholic  Church.  They  threw  the  blame  on  Augus- 
tine himself,  who  had  placed  over  them  so  unworthy  a 
bishop.  Augustine  confessed  his  error,  and  urged  the 
claims  of  the  people  of  Fussola  for  redress  in  the  most 
earnest  terms.  He  threatened  to  resign  his  own  see. 
The  dispute  ended  in  the  suppression  of  the  see  of 
Fussola,  by  the  decree  of  a  Council  of  Numidia,  and 
the  assent  of  Celestine.  It  was  reunited  to  that  of 
Hippo. 

But  the  second  dispute  was  not  conducted  with 
the  same  temper  —  it  terminated  in  more  Apianus. 
important  consequences.  Apiarius,  a  presbyter  of  Sic- 
ca,  was  degraded  for  many  heinous  offences  by  his 
own  bishop.  On  his  appeal,  he  was  taken  under  the 
protection  of  Rome  without  due  caution  or  inquiry  by 
the  hasty  Zosimus.  Zosimus  commanded  *•»•  419. 
his  restoration  to  his  rank,  as  well  as  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church.  The  African  bishops  pro- 
tested against  this  interference  with  their  episcopal 
rights.  In  an  assembly  of  217  bishops  at  Carthage, 


266  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

appeared  Faustinas,  Bishop  of  Picenum,  and  two  Ro- 
man presbyters.  They  boldly  produced  two  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Nicea,  that  first  and  most  sacred  legisla- 
tive assembly,  to  which  Christendom  owed  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  sound  Trinitarian  doctrine,  and  which 
was  received  by  all  the  orthodox  world  with  un- 
bounded reverence.  These  canons  established  a  gen- 
eral right  of  appeal  from  all  parts  of  Christendom  to 
Rome.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  might  not  only  receive 
the  appeal,  but  might  delegate  the  judgment  on  appeal 
to  the  neighboring  bishops,  or  commission  one  of  his 
own  presbyters  to  demand  a  second  hearing  of  the 
cause,  or  send  judges,  according  to  his  own  discretion, 
to  sit  as  assessors,  representing  the  Papal  authority 
with  the  bishops  of  the  neighborhood.1  The  African 
bishops  protested,  with  exemplary  gravity,  their  respect 
for  all  the  decrees  of  the  Nicene  Council ;  but  they 
were  perplexed,  they  said,  by  one  circumstance  —  that 
in  no  copy  of  those  decrees,  which  they  had  ever  seen, 
did  such  Canons  appear.  They  requested  that  the 
authentic  copies,  supposed  to  be  preserved  at  Con- 
stantinople, Antioch,  and  Alexandria,  might  be  in- 
spected.2 It  turned  out,  that  either  from  ignorance 
in  himself,  almost  incredible,  or  from  a  bold  presump- 
tion of  ignorance  in  others,  not  less  inconceivable,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  adduced  Canons  of  the  Synod 
of  Sardica,  a  council  of  which  the  authority  was  in 
many  respects  highly  questionable,  and  wliich  did  not 
aspire  to  the  dignity  of  a  General  Council,  for  the 
solemn  decrees  of  the  great  (Ecumenic  Senate.  The 

1ME  latere  suo  Presbyterum  "  is  the  expression  —  probably  heard  for 
the  first  time  in  these  canons. 

2  "  Habentes  auctoritatem  ejus  a  quo  destinati  sunt."  — Labbe,  Cone.  ii. 
p.  1590. 


CHAP.  IV.    DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  AFRICAN  CHURCH.      267 

close  of  this  affair  was  as  unfavorable  as  its  conduct  to 
the  lofty  pretensions  of  the  Roman  Bishop.  While 
the  Africans  calmly  persisted  in  asserting  the  guilt  of 
Apiarius,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  through  his  legate, 
obstinately  pronounced  him  to  be  the  victim  of  injus- 
tice. Apiarius  himself,  seized  by  a  paroxysm  of  re- 
morse, suddenly  and  publicly  made  confession  of  all 
the  crimes  imputed  to  him  —  crimes  so  heinous  and 
offensive,  that  groans  of  horror  broke  forth  from  the 
shuddering  judges.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  was  left  in 
the  humiliating  position  of  having  rashly  embarked  in 
an  iniquitous  cause,  and  set  up  as  the  judge  of  the 
African  bishops  on  partial,  unsatisfactory,  and  as  it 
appeared,  utterly  worthless  evidence.  The  African 
bishops  pursued  their  advantage,  adduced  the  genuine 
Canons  of  Nicea,  which  gave  each  Provincial  Council 
full  authority  over  its  own  affairs,  and  quietly  rebuked 
the  Roman  Prelate  for  his  eagerness  in  receiving  all 
outcasts  from  the  Churches  of  Africa,  and  interfering 
in  their  behalf  concerning  matters  of  which  he  must 
be  ignorant.  They  asserted  that  God  would  hardly 
grant  to  one  that  clear  and  searching  judgment  which 
he  denied  to  many.1  Thus,  in  fact,  they  proclaimed 
the  entire  independence  of  the  African  Churches  on 
any  foreign  dominion :  they  forbade  all  appeals  to 
transmarine  judgments.2 

But  Africa   had  not  to  contest  that  independence 
with  the  ambition  and  ability  of  Leo.     The  long  age 

1  "  Nisi  forte  quispiam  est  qui  credat,  unicuilibet  posse  Deum  nostrum 
examinis  inspirare  justitiam,  et  innumerabilibus  congregatis  in  unum  con- 
cilium denegare."  —  Labbe,  Concil.  ii.  p.  1675. 

2  "  Quod  si  ab  eis  provocandum  putaverunt,  non  provocent  ad  trans- 
marina  judicia,  sed  ad  Primates  suarum  Provinciarum  (aut  ad  Universal^ 
Concilium)  sicut  et  de  Episcopis  saepe  constitution  est."  — Ibid. 


268  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

of  peace,  wealth,  fertility,  and  comparative  happiness 
which  had  almost  secluded  Africa,  since  the  battle  of 
Thapsus,  from  the  wars  and  civil  contentions  of  the 
Empire,  and  had  permitted  Christianity  to  spread  its 
beneficent  influence  over  the  whole  province,  was 
drawing  to  a  close.  The  Vandal  conquest  began  that 
long  succession  of  calamities  —  the  Arian  persecutions 
under  Hunneric  and  Thrasimund,  the  successors  of 
Geuseric  —  the  re-conquest  by  the  Eastern  Empire, 
and  the  internal  wars,  with  their  train  of  miseries, 
famine,  pestilence,  devastation,  which  blasted  the  rich 
land  into  a  desert;  silenced  altogether  the  clamors 
of  Christian  strife  still  maintained  by  the  irreclaim- 
able Donatists,  and  quenched  all  the  lights  of  Chris- 
tian learning  and  piety ;  until,  at  length,  the  whole 
realm  was  wrested  by  the  strong  arm  of  Mahomedan- 
ism  from  its  connection  with  Christendom  and  the 
civilization  of  Europe. 

The  Vandal  conquest  under  Genseric  alone  belongs 
vandal  con-  to  this  period.  The  Vandals,  until  the  in- 
Africa.  vasion  of  the  Huns,  had  been  dreaded  as 
the  most  ferocious  of  the  Northern  or  Eastern  tribes. 
Their  savage  love  of  war  had  hardly  been  mitigated 
by  their  submission  to  Arian  Christianity.  Yet  the 
invasion  of  Genseric  was  at  first  a  conquest  rather 
than  a  persecution.  The  churches  were  not  sacred 
against  the  general  pillage,  but  it  was  their  wealth 
which  inflamed  the  cupidity,  rather  than  the  oppug- 
nancy  of  the  doctrine  within  their  walls  which  pro- 
voked the  insults  of  the  invaders.  The  clergy  did 
not  escape  the  general  massacre :  many  of  them  suf- 
fered cruel  tortures,  but  they  fell  in  the  promiscuous 
ruin :  they  were  racked,  or  exposed  to  other  excruciat- 


CHAP.  IV.  VANDAL  CONQUEST  OF  AFRICA.  269 

ing  torments  to  compel  the  surrender  of  their  treasures, 
which  they  had  concealed,  or  were  supposed  to  have 
concealed.  After  the  capture  of  Carthage,  bishops 
and  ecclesiastics  of  rank,  as  well  as  nobles,  were 
reduced  to  servitude.  The  successor  of  Cyprian, 
"  Quod  vult  Deus,"  ("What  God  wills,"  — the  Afri- 
can prelates  had  anticipated  our  Puritans  in  their 
Scriptural  names,)  and  many  of  his  clergy  were 
embarked  in  crazy  vessels,  and  cast  on  shore  on  the 
coast  of  Naples.  Yet  Genseric  permitted  the  elevation 
of  another  orthodox  bishop,  Deo  Gratias,  at  the  prayer 
of  Valentinian,  to  the  see  of  Carthage.  Valentinian 
might  seem  prophetically  to  prepare  succor  and  com- 
fort for  the  Romans  who  should  hereafter  be  earned 
captives  to  Carthage. 

During  the  later  years  of  his  reign  Genseric  became 
a  more  cruel  persecutor.  He  would  admit  only  Arian 
counsellors  about  his  court.  The  honors  of  martyr- 
dom are  claimed  for  many  victims,  perhaps  rather  of 
his  jealousy  than  of  his  intolerance ;  for  the  Vandal 
dominion  was  that  of  an  armed  aristocracy,  few  in 
numbers  when  compared  with  the  vast  population  of 
Roman  Africa.  He  closed  the  churches  of  the  ortho- 
dox in  Carthage  after  the  death  of  Deo  Gratias ;  they 
were  not  opened  for  some  time,  but  at  length,  at  the 
intervention  of  the  Emperor  of  the  East,  they  were 
permitted  a  short  period  of  peace,  until  the  reign  of 
Genseric's  more  fiercely  intolerant  successors,  Hun- 
neric  and  Thrasimund.1 

Gaul  was  the  province  of  the  Western  empire, 
beyond  the  limits  of  Italy  (perhaps  excepting  Gaui. 

i  Victor  Vitensis,  lib.  i.,  with  the  notes  of  Ruinart,  Hist.  Persecution^ 
Vandalicse. 


270  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

Africa),  which  was  most  closely  connected  by  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  relations  with  the  centre  of  govern- 
ment. But  Northern  and  Western  Gaul,  as  well  as 
the  two  Germanics,  were  already  occupied  by  Teutonic 
conquerors,  Goths,  Burgundians,  and  Franks,  and  were 
either  independent,  or  rendered  but  nominal  allegiance 
to  the  descendants  of  Theodosius.  Britain  appeared 
entirely  lost  to  the  Roman  empire  and  to  Christianity. 
Her  Christianity  had  retired  to  her  remote  mountain 
fastnesses  in  Wales,  Cornwall,  Cumberland,  and  to 
tb.3  more  distant  islands ;  it  was  cut  off  altogether 
from  the  Roman  world.  But  in  Gaul  the  clergy,  at 
least  the  orthodox  clergy,  were  as  yet  everywhere  of 
pure  Roman,  or  Gallo-Roman  race :  the  Teutonic 
conquerors,  who  were  Christians,  Goths,  Burgundians, 
Vandals,  had  not  shaken  off  the  Arianism  into  which 
they  had  been  converted;  and  the  Franks  were  still 
fierce  and  obstinate  pagans.  The  Southern  Province 
alone  retained  its  full  subordination  to  the  Court  of 
Ravenna ;  and  the  jealousies  and  contests  among  the 
Bishops  of  Gaul  had  already  driven  them  to  Rome, 
the  aggrieved  for  redress  against  the  oppression,  the 
turbulent  for  protection  against  the  legitimate  authority 
of  their  Bishops  or  Metropolitans,  the  Pivlates  whose 
power  was  contested,  for  confirmation  of  their  domin- 
ion. The  acknowledged  want  of  such  a  superior  juris- 
diction would  thus  have  created,  even  if  there  had 
been  no  pretensions  grounded  on  the  su'-re«inn  to  St. 
Peter,  a  jurisdiction  of  appeal.  Nowhere  indeed  can 
the  origin  of  appeals  be  traced  more  dearly,  as  arising 
out  of  the  state  of  the  Church.  The  Metropolitan 
power  over  Narbonese  Gaul  was  contested  by  the 
Churches  of  Aries  and  Vienne.  The  circumstances 


CHAP.  IV.  OKIGIN  OF  APPEALS.  271 

of  the  times,  the  retirement  of  the  Prefect  of  Gaul 
from  Treves  to  Aries,  the  dignity  which  that  city  had 
assumed  as  the  seat,  however  of  an  usurped  empire, 
had  given  a  supremacy  to  Aries.  But  neither  would 
the  metropolitan  nor  the  episcopal  dignity  be  adminis- 
tered with  such  calm  justice  as  to  command  universal 
obedience.  Severe  discipline  and  strict  adherence  to 
the  canons  by  the  austere  would  excite  rebellion,  laxity 
and  weakness  encourage  license.  A  remote  tribunal 
would  be  sought  by  all,  by  some  out  of  despair  of  find- 
ing justice  nearer  home,  by  some  in  the  hope  that  a 
bad  cause  might  find  favorable  hearing  where  the 
judges  must  be  comparatively  ignorant,  and  propitiated 
by  that  welcome  deference  which  submitted  to  their 
authority.  Yet,  though  there  are  several  instances  of 
Bishops  deposed,  not  seldom  unjustly,  by  synods  of 
Gallic  Bishops,  none  had  carried  his  complaint  before 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  until  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.1  Priscillian  appealed  from  the  Council  of 
Bourdeaux,  not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  to  the 
Emperor.  During  the  Pontificate  of  Zosimus,  Patro- 
clus,  Archbishop  of  Aries,  was  involved  in  an  implaca- 
ble feud  with  Proculus,  Bishop  of  Marseilles.2  That 
degradation  of  Proculus  which  he  could  notA.D.385. 
inflict  by  his  own  power,  the  Metropolitan  of  Aries 
endeavored  to  obtain  by  that  of  Zosimus.3  Zosimus, 

1  Quesnel,  Dissertat.  v.  p.  384. 

2  Every  point  in  this  controversy  has  been  discussed  with  the  most  un- 
wearied pertinacity  by  the  advocates,  —  on  one  side  of  the  high  Papal  su- 
premacy; on  the  other,  by  the  defenders  of  the  Gallican  liberties.     I  have 
endeavored  to  hold  an  equal  hand,  and  to  dwell  only  on  the  facts  which 
rest  on  evidence.   There  is  an  implacable  war  between  the  successive  editors 
of  the  works  of  Leo  the  Great, — the  Frenchman  Quescel,  and  the  Italians, 
the  Ballerinis. 

»  Sulpic.  Sever.  11. 


272  LATEST  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

it  appears  to  be  admitted,  was  deceived  by  the  misrep- 
resentations of  Patroclus,  and  scrupled  not  to  issue 
Feb.  9, 422.  the  sentence  of  degradation  against  the 
Bishop  of  Marseilles.1  Proculus  defied  the  sentence, 
and  continued  to  exercise  his  episcopal  powers.  The 
more  prudent  Pope,  Boniface,  in  a  case  of  appeal  from 
the  clergy  of  Valence  against  their  Bishop,  referred 
the  affair  back  to  the  Bishops  of  the  province.2 

Under  Leo,  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See  over 
Gaul  was  brought  to  the  issue  of  direct  assertion  on 
his  part,  of  inflexible  resistance  on  that  of  his  oppo- 
nent. Hilarius,  a  devout  and  austere  prelate,  invested 
by  his  admiring  biographer  in  every  virtue,  in  the  holi- 
ness and  charity  of  a  saint,  a  perfect  monk  and  a  con- 
summate prelate  —  (as  a  preacher,  it  was  said  that 
Augustine,  if  he  had  lived  after  Hilarius,  would  have 
been  esteemed  his  inferior)  —  was  Archbishop  of 
Aries.3  His  zeal  or  his  ambition  aspired  to  raise  that 
metropolitan  seat  into  a  kind  of  Pontificate  of  Gaul. 
He  was  accustomed  to  make  visitations,  accompanied 
by  the  holy  Germanus  of  Auxerre,  not  improbably 
beyond  the  doubtful  or  undefined  limits  of  his  metro- 
politan power.4  During  one  of  these  visitations, 

i  Zosim.JEpist  12  ad  Patrocl. 

3  Bonifac.  Epist.  ad  Episcop.  Gallise. 

8  The  account  of  his  election,  by  his  biographer,  is  curious.  He  was 
designated  as  bishop  by  his  predecessor  Honoratus.  He  was  then  a  monk 
of  Lerins.  A  large  band  of  the  citizens  of  Aries,  with  a  troop  of  soldiers, 
set  out  to  take  him  by  force.  They  did  not  know  him :  "  spiritalis  praeda 
adstat  ante  oculus  inquirentium,  et  nihilominus  ignoratur."  He  is  discov- 
ered, but  requires  a  sign  from  heaven.  A  dove  settles  on  his  head.  —  S. 
Hilar.  Vit  apud  Leon.  Oper.  p.  323. 

4  "  Ordinationes  sibi  omnium  per  Gallias  ecclesiarum  vindicans,  et  debi- 
tam  metropolitanis  sacerdotibus  in   suam   translVrciis  dignitatem;    ipsius 
qnoque  beatissimi  Petri  reverentiam  verbis  arrogantibus  minuendo  .  .  .  ita 
•use  vos  cupiens  subdere  potestati,  ut  se  Beato  apostolo  Petro  non  patiatur 


CHAP.  IV.  HILAEIUS  BEFOEE  LEO.  273 

charges  of  disqualification  for  the  episcopal  office  were 
exhibited  against  Celidonius,  Bishop,  according  to  some 
accounts,  of  Besan^on.  He  was  accused  of  having 
been  the  husband  of  a  widow,  and  in  his  civil  state  of 
having  pronounced  as  magistrate  sentences  of  capital 
punishment.  Hilarius  hastily  summoned  a  council  of 
Bishops,  and  pronounced  sentence  of  deposition  against 
Celidonius.  On  the  intelligence  that  Celidonius  had 
gone  to  Rome  to  appeal  against  this  decree,  Hilarius 
set  forth,  it  is  said,  on  foot,  crossed  the  Alps,  and  trav- 
elled without  horse  or  sumpter  mule  to  the  Great  City. 
He  presented  himself  before  Leo,  and  with  A.D.  445. 
respectful  earnestness  entreated  him  not  to  infringe  the 
ancient  usages  of  the  Gallic  Churches,  significantly 
declaring  that  he  came  not  to  plead  before  Leo,  or,  as 
an  accuser  in  a  case  of  appeal,  but  to  protest  against 
the  usurpation  of  his  rights.1  Leo  proceeded  to  annul 
the  sentence  of  Hilarius  and  to  restore  Celidonius  to 
his  bishopric.  He  summoned  Hilarius  to  rebut  the 
evidence  adduced  by  Celidonius,  to  disprove  the  justice 
of  his  condemnation.  So  haughty  was  the  language 
of  Hilarius,  that  no  layman  would  dare  to  utter,  no 
ecclesiastic  would  endure  to  hear  such  words.2  He  in- 
flexibly resisted  all  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  of 
St.  Peter;  and  confronted  the  Pope  with  the  bold 
assertion  of  his  own  unbounded  metropolitan  power. 
Hilarius  thought  his  life  in  danger ;  or  he  feared  lest 

esse  subjection." — Leo.  Epist.  This  may  have  been  stated  by  Leo  under 
indignation  at  the  resistance  of  Hilarius  to  his  authority,  and  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  enemies  of  Hilarius ;  but  his  biographer  admits  that  the  very 
humility  of  Hilarius  had  generated  a  kind  of  supercilious  haughtiness;  he 
was  rigid,  but  to  the  proud,  terrible,  but  to  the  worldly.  — p.  326. 

1  "  Se  ad  officianon  ad  causam  venisse;  protestandi  ordine  non  accusandi 
qu£e  sunt  acta  suggerere."  — Vit.  Hil. 

2  "  Qua;  nullus  laicorum  dicere.  nullus  sacerdotuin  posset  audire."  — Ibid 

VOL.  i.  18 


274  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

he  should  be  seized  and  compelled  to  communicate  with 
the  deposed  Celidonius.  He  stole  out  of  Rome,  and 
though  it  was  the  depth  of  winter,  found  his  way  back 
to  Aries.1  The  accounts  of  St.  Hilarius,  hitherto 
reconcilable,  now  diverge  into  strange  contradiction. 
The  author  of  his  Life  represents  him  as  having  made 
some  weak  overtures  of  reconciliation  to  Leo,  as  wast- 
ing himself  out  with  toils,  austerities,  and  devotions, 
and  dying  before  he  had  completed  his  forty-first  year. 
He  died,  visited  by  visions  of  glory,  in  ecstatic  peace ; 
his  splendid  funeral  was  honored  by  the  tears  of  the 
whole  city ;  the  very  Jews  were  clamorous  in  their  sor- 
row for  the  beneficent  Prelate.  The  people  were 
hardly  prevented  from  tearing  his  body  to  pieces,  in 
order  to  possess  such  inestimable  relics.2 

The  counter-statement  fills  up  the  interval  before 
HHariusdied  ^e  death  °^  Hilarius  with  other  important 
A.I>.  449.  events.  Leo  addresses  a  letter  to  the  Bishops 
of  the  province  of  Vienne,  denouncing  the  impious 
resistance  of  Hilarius  to  the  authority  of  St.  Peter, 
and  releasing  them  from  all  allegiance  to  the  See  of 
Aries.  For  hardly  had  the  affair  of  Celidonius  been 
decided  by  the  See  of  Rome  than  a  new  charge  of 
ecclesiastical  tyranny  had  been  alleged  against  Hilarius. 
The  Bishop  Projectus  complained,  that  while  he  was 
afflicted  with  illness,  Hilarius,  to  whose  province  he 
did  not  belong,  had  consecrated  another  Bishop  in  his 

1  The  accounts  of  this  transaction  in  the  Life  and  in  the  Letters  of  Pope 
Leo  appear  to  me,  considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  each  writer,  strictly 
coincident,  instead  of  obstinately  irreconcilable. 

2  The  writer  describes  himself  as  a  witness  of  this  remarkable  fact: 
"  Etiam  Judaeorum  concurrunt  agrnina  copiosa.  .  .  .  Hebrseam  concinen- 
tium  linguam  in  exequiis  honorandis  audisse  me  recolo.     Nam  nostros  ita 
moeror  obsederat,  ut  ab  officio  solito  impatiens  doloria  inhibuerit  magni- 
tude."—  p.  339. 


CHAP.  IV.  HILARIUS  CENSURED.  275 

place,  and  this  in  such  haste,  that  he  had  respected 
none  of  the  canonical  forms  of  election ;  he  had 
awaited  neither  the  suffrage  of  the  citizens,  the  testi- 
monials of  the  more  distinguished,  nor  the  election  of 
the  Clergy.  In  this,  and  in  other  instances  of  irregu- 
lar ordinations,  Hilarius  had  called  in  the  military 
power,  and  tumultuously  interfered  in  the  affairs  of 
many  churches.  It  is  significantly  suggested,  that  on 
every  occasion  Hilarius  had  been  prodigal  of  the  last 
and  most  awful  power  possessed  by  the  Church,  that 
of  excommunication.1  Hilarius  was  commanded  to 
confine  himself  to  his  own  diocese,  deprived  of  the 
authority  which  he  had  usurped  over  the  province  of 
Vienne,  and  forbidden  to  be  present  at  any  future  ordi- 
nations. But  a  sentence,  in  those  days  more  awful 
than  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  pronounced 
against  Hilarius.  At  the  avowed  instance  of  Leo, 
Valentinian  promulgated  an  Imperial  Edict,  denounced 
the  contumacy  of  Hilarius  against  the  primacy  of  the 
Apostolic  throne,  confirmed  alike  by  the  merits  of  St. 
Peter,  the  chief  of  the  episcopal  order,  by  the  majesty 
of  the  Roman  city,  and  by  the  decree  of  a  holy  Coun- 
cil. Peace  can  alone  rule  in  the  Church,  if  the  uni- 
versal Church  acknowledge  its  Lord.  Hilarius  is  ac- 
cused of  various  acts  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and 
violence,  irregular  ordinations,  deposals  of  Bishops 
without  authority :  of  entering  cities  at  the  head  of 
an  armed  force,  of  waging  war  instead  of  establishing 
peace.  The  sentence  of  so  great  a  Pontiff  as  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  need  Imperial  confirmation  ; 
but  as  Hilarius  had  offended  against  the  Majesty  of 

1 "  Sed  quod  minim  eum  in  laicos  talem  existere,  qui  soleat  in  sacerdo- 
tum  damnations  gaudere?  "  —  S.  Leon.  Epist.  ad  Vienn. 


276  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

the  Empire,  as  well  as  against  the  Apostolic  See,  he 
was  reminded  that  it  was  only  through  the  mildn 
Leo  that  he  retained  his  see.  He  and  all  the  Bishops 
were  warned  to  observe  this  perpetual  Edict,  which 
solemnly  enacted  that  nothing  should  be  done  in  Gaul, 
contrary  to  ancient  usage,  without  the  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  the  Eternal  City ;  that  the  decree  of 
the  Apostolic  See  should  henceforth  be  law  ;  and  who- 
ever refused  to  obey  the  citation  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
should  be  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  Moderator  of  the 
Province.1 

Spain  was  already  nearly  dissevered  from  the  empire 
Spain.  of  Rome.  It  had  been  overrun,  it  was  in 
great  part  occupied,  by  Teutonic  conquerors,  Suevians, 
Goths,  and  Vandals,  all  of  whom,  as  far  as  they  were 
Christians,  adhered  to  the  Arianism  to  which  they 
had  been  converted  by  their  first  Apostles.  The  land 
groaned  under  the  oppression  of  foreign  rulers,  the  or- 
thodox Church  under  the  superiority  of  Arian  sover- 
eigns. If  the  provinces  looked  back,  at  least  with  the 
regret  of  interrupted  habit,  to  the  Imperial  government, 
and  in  vain  hoped  for  deli verance  from  the  sinking  house 
of  Theodosius,  the  orthodox  Church  uttered  its  cry  of 
distress  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  was  not  however 
against  Arianism,  but  a  more  formidable  and  dangerous 
antagonist ;  one  kindred  to  that  which  Leo  had  sup- 
pressed with  such  difficulty  in  his  own  immediate  terri- 
tory. 

The  blood  of  the  Spanish  Bishop  Priscillian,  the  first 
martyr  of  heresy,  as  usual  had  flowed  in  vain.  He 
had  been  put  to  death  by  the  usurper  Maximus.  at  the 

1  Constitutio  Yalentiniani,  iii.  August!,  apud  S.  Leonis  Opera,  Epist.  xi. 
p.  642. 


CHAP.  IV.  CONDITION  OF  SPAIN.  277 

instigation  of  two  other  Spanish  prelates,  Ithacius  and 
Valens  ;  but  to  the  undisguised  horror  of  such  Church- 
men as  Ambrose  and  Martin  of  Tours.  Leo  more 
sternly  approved  this  sanguinary  intervention  of  the 
civil  power.  But,  in  justice  to  Leo,  it  was  the  moral 
and  social,  rather  than  civil  offence  of  which  he  sup- 
posed the  Priscillians  guilty,  which  justly  called  forth  the 
vengeance  of  the  temporal  Sovereign.  In  such  case 
alone  the  spiritual  power,  which  abhorred  legal  acts  of 
bloodshed,  would  recur  to  the  civil  authority.1  But 
the  opinions  of  Priscillian  still  prevailed,  and  even 
seemed  to  have  taken  deeper  root  in  Spain.  Prelates 
were  infected  with  the  indelible  contagion.  Turibius, 
the  Bishop  of  Astorga,  laid  the  burden  of  his  sorrows 
before  Leo ;  he  asked  his  advice  in  what  manner  to 
cope  with  these  dangerous  adversaries.  The  doctrines 
of  the  Priscillians  are  summed  up  in  sixteen  articles. 
In  these  appear  the  great  universal  principles  of  Gnos- 
ticism or  Manicheism,  or  rather  of  Orientalism  :  the 
sole  existence  of  the  primal  Godhead,  which  preceded 
the  emanation  of  his  virtues.  In  this  primal  Godhead, 
if  they  recognized  a  Trinity,  it  was  but  a  trinity  of 
names.  In  these  articles  their  enemies  detected  Arian- 
ism  and  Sabellianism.  To  the  Godhead  was  opposed 
the  uncreated  Power  of  darkness,  equally  eternal, 
sprung  from  chaos  and  gloom.  The  Christ  existed  not 
till  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin ;  it  was  his  office  to 

1  "  Videbant  enim  omnem  curam  honestatis  auferri,  omnem  conjugiorum 
copulain  solvi,  simulque  divinum  jus  humanumque  subverts,  si  hujusmodi 
hominibus  usquam  vivere  cum  tali  professione  licuisset.  Profuit  diu  ista 
districtio  ecclesiasticae  lenitatis,  quae  etsi  sacerdotali  contenta  judicio,  cruen- 
tas  refugit  ultiones,  severis  tamen  Christianorum  principum  constitutionibus 
adjuvatur,  dum  ad  spiritale  nonnunquam  recurrunt  remedium,  qui  timent 
corporate  supplicium."  —  S.  Leon.  Epist.  See  Hist,  of  Christianity,  iii 
262. 


278  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

deliver  the  souls  of  men,  those  souls  being  of  the  Ji- 

*  O 

vine  Essence,  from  the  bondage  of  the  body,  that  body 
created  by  the  spirit  of  darkness.  The  Priscillianites 
fasted  rigidly  on  the  day  of  the  Nativity,  and  on  every 
Sunday,  as  the  day  of  Resurrection,  no  doubt  not  on 
account  of  the  unreality  of  the  Saviour's  body,  but  for 
an  opposite  reason,  because  at  his  birth  he  was  de- 
graded to  an  union  with  a  material  body,  and  at  his 
resurrection  reassumed  that  infected  condition.  It  was 
this  that  set  them  in  perpetual,  implacable  antagonism, 
not  merely  in  their  secret  opinions,  but  in  their  public 
and  outward  usages,  with  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world.  Their  austere  proscription  of  marriage,  and 
aversion  to  the  procreation  of  beings  with  material 
bodies,  led  to  the  accustomed  charge,  perhaps  in  many 
A.D.  447.  cases,  among  the  rude  and  ignorant,  to  the 
natural  consequence,  gross  licentiousness.  The  peculi- 
arity of  the  Priscillian  system  was  an  astrological  Fa- 
talism. The  superstition  which  prevailed  for  so  long 
a  period  in  Europe,  of  assigning  certain  parts  of  the 
human  body  to  the  influences  of  the  signs  of  the  Zo- 
diac, assumes  its  first  distinct  form  in  their  tenets.1  It 
was  the  earthly  part  which  was  subject  to  these  powers, 
who  in  some  mysterious  way  were  concerned  in  its  cre- 
ation. Leo  proceeded  not,  by  a  summary  edict,  to 
evoke  this  question  from  the  Churches  of  Spain  ;  he 
recommended  the  convocation  of  a  general  Council  of 
Bishops  from  the  four  Provinces  of  Tarragona,  Cartha- 
gena,  Lusitania,  and  Gallicia.  If  the  times  prevented 

1  Cap.  xiv.  apud  Leon.  Oper.  p.  705.  "  Ad  hanc  insaniam  pertinet  pro- 
digiosa  ilia  totius  human!  corporis  per  duodecim  cceli  signa  distinctio,  ut 
diversis  partibus  diverase  pnesideant  potestates ;  et  creature,  quam  Deus  ad 
imaginem  suam  fecit,  in  tanta  sit  oMi^atione  siderum,  in  quant&  estconnex- 
one  membrorum."  —  S.  Leon.  Epist.  xv. 


CHAP.  IT.  ILLYEICTJM.  279 

this  general  assembly,  the  Bishop  of  Astorga  might 
appeal  to  a  Provincial  Council  from  Gallicia  alone. 
Two  Councils  were  held,  one  at  Toledo,  the  other  at 
Braga  in  Gallicia,  in  which  Priscillianism  was  con- 
demned in  the  usual  terms  of  anathema.1 

Illyricum,  in  the  primary  division  of  the  Empire, 
had  been  assigned  to  the  West ;  it  would  be  nijricum. 
comprehended  under  the  patriarchal  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  As  early  as  the  pontificate  of  Siri- 
cius,  the  metropolitan  of  Thessalonica  was  appointed  as 
delegate  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  rule  the  province. 
To  this  precedent  Leo  appeals,  when  he  invests  Anas- 
tasius,  Metropolitan  of  the  same  city,  with  equal  pow- 
ers.2 But  he  does  not  rest  his  title  to  supremacy  on 
his  Patriarchal  power,  or  on  the  claim  of  the  Western 
Empire  to  the  allegiance  of  Illyricum ;  he  grounds  it 
on  the  universal  dominion  which  belongs  to  the  suc- 
cessors of  St.  Peter.  The  province  appears  to  have 
acquiesced  in  his  authority,  and  received  with  due 
submission  his  ordinances  concerning  the  election  of 
Bishops  and  Metropolitans.  But  all  graver  causes 
were  to  be  referred  to  Rome  for  judgment. 

The  East,  again  plunged  into  a  new  controversy, 
might  look  with  envy  on  the  passive  peace  of  The  East, 
the  West.  Supremacy,  held  by  so  firm  and  vigorous 
a  hand  as  that  of  Leo,  might  seem  almost  necessary  to 
Christendom.  The  Bishop  of  Rome,  standing  aloof, 
and  only  mingling  in  the  contests  by  legates,  whom  he 

1  It  is  declared  in  this  decree,  that  all  who  had  been  twice  married,  who 
had  married  widows,  or  divorced  women,  were  canonically  unfit  for  the 
priesthood.    Xor  was  it  any  excuse  that  the  first  wife  had  been  married 
before  baptism.    "  Cum  in  baptismate  peccata  deleantur,  non  uxorum  nu- 
merus  abrogetur." 

2  Epist.  v.  ad  Episcop.  Metropol.  per  Illyricum  constitutes  (Jan.  12,  444). 


280  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

might  disclaim  at  any  time  as  exceeding  their  powers, 
could  not  but  be  heard  with  anxious  submission  by 
both  parties,  and  by  the  Christian  world  at  large. 
He  would  be  contemplated  with  awful  reverence,  as 
attempting  to  command  troubled  Christendom  into 
repose.  Nestorianism  had  been,  if  not  suppressed 
within  the  empire,  reduced  to  the  utmost  weakness ;  it 
had  been  cast  forth  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Roman 
world  into  distant  and  miserable  exile.  Nestorius  him- 
self had  been  the  victim  of  the  remorseless  persecu- 
tion. 

But  the  theological  balance  was  too  nicely  poised  on 
this  question,  not  speedily  to  descend  on  the  opposite 
side.  Cyril  himself,  by  some  of  his  strong  expressions, 
had  given  manifest  advantage  to  the  Oriental  Bishops.1 
Many  who  condemned  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  loudly 
impeached  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Alexandrian  Prelate. 
The  Monks.  Almost  throughout  the  East,  the  monks, 
mindful  perhaps  of  their  Egyptian  origin,  had  been 
strenuous  in  the  cause  of  Cyril.  In  Constantinople 
they  had  overawed  the  government,  and  powerfully 
contributed  to  the  discomfiture  of  Nestorius.  But  from 
character,  education,  and  habits  the  Eastern  monks 
were  least  qualified  to  be  the  arbiters  in  a  controversy 
which  depended  on  fine  shades  and  differences  of  expres- 
sion. Their  dreamy  and  recluse  life,  their  rigid  ritual 
observances,  even  their  austerities,  instead  of  sharpen- 
ing then:  intellects,  led  to  vague  conceptions  ;  and  the 
want  of  commerce  wnth  mankind  disabled  them  from 
wielding  the  keen  weapons  of  dialectics,  or  of  compre- 
hending the  subtle  distinctions  taught  in  the  schools  of 
philosophy.  From  the  temperament  which  drove  them 
i  See  p.  142. 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  MONKS  —  EUTYCHES.  281 

to  the  cell  or  cloister,  and  which  was  not  corrected  by 
enlightened  education,  their  opinions  quickly  became 
passions ;  those  passions  were  inflamed  by  mutual  en- 
couragement, emulation,  and  the  corporate  spirit  of 
small  communities,  actuated  by  a  dominant  feeling.  Nor 
with  them  were  these,  points  of  abstract  and  specula- 
tive theology  ;  the  honor  of  the  Redeemer,  the  dignity 
of  the  Virgin  Mother  now  so  rapidly  rising  into  an  ob- 
ject of  adoration,  were  deeply  committed  in  the  strife. 
Such  men  were  to  speak  with  precise  and  guarded  lan- 
guage on  the  unity  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  in 
the  person  of  Christ ;  on  the  unity  which  combined 
the  two  in  perfect  harmony,  yet  allowed  not  either  to 
encroach  on  the  separate  distinctness,  the  unalterable 
and  uninterchangeable  attributes  of  the  other. 

The  foremost  adherent  of  Cyril  in  Constantinople 
had  been  Eutyches,  a  Presbyter,  the  Archi-  Eutyches. 
mandrite  or  Superior  of  a  convent  of  monks  without 
the  walls  of  the  city.1  At  his  bidding  the  swarms  of 
monks  had  thronged  into  the  streets,  defied  the  civil 
power,  terrified  the  Emperor,  and  contributed,  more 
than  any  other  cause,  to  the  final  overthrow  of 
Nestorius.  He  had  grown  old  in  the  war  against 
heresy  ;  he  had  lived  in  continence  for  seventy  years  ; 2 
nor  was  it  till  after  his  departure  from  strict  ortho- 
doxy that  men  began  to  discover  his  total  deficiency 
in  learning. 

A  new  race  of  Metropolitans  had  arisen  in  the  more 
important  sees  of  the  East.     That  of  Antioch  was  filled 

1  Eutyches  is  three  times  mentioned  as  a  powerful  ally  of  Cyril  in  the 
memorable  letter  to  Maximianus,  cited  above.     Flavian.  Epist.  ad  Leon. 
Brev.  Hist.  Eutych.  p.  759.    Liberatus  in  Breviar. 

2  Ad  Leon.  Epist.  sub  fin.    He  complains  in  another  place  that  Flavianus 
had  not  respected  his  gray  hairs. 


282  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

by  Domnus,  that  of  Alexandria  by  Diosco- 

*  • 

rus ;  Flavianus  ruled  the  Church  of  Constan- 
tinople.  All  these  prelates  inherited  the  or- 
thodox aversion  to  Nestorianism.  Dioscorus, .  though 
he  persecuted  the  relatives  of  Cyril,  despoiled  them 
of  their  property,  and  degraded  them  from  their  offices, 
with  the  violence,  the  turbulence,  and  the  intolerance 
of  his  predecessor,  adhered  to  his  anti-Xestorian  opin- 
ions. A  great  effort  had  been  made  to  crush  the 
lingering  influence  of  those  Prelates  who  had  resisted 
Cyril.  The  aged  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  who  had  ac- 
cepted the  peace  of  Antioch,  but  had  not  consented 
either  to  the  condemnation  or  to  the  complete  absolu- 
tion of  Cyril ;  Ibas  of  Edessa,  who  had  defended  the 
suspected  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia ;  Ire- 
nseus  of  Tyre,  who,  as  a  civilian,  when  Count  of  the 
Empire,  had  been  held  a  partisan  of  the  Nestorian 
party,  and  though  he  had  been  twice  married,  had 
been  promoted  to  that  see:  these,  with  some  others, 
were  degraded  from  their  rank,  and  sent  into  exile. 
In  all  these  movements,  Eutyches  and  his  monks 
had  joined  —  always  their  clamors ;  where  tumults  in 
the  streets  of  Constantinople  or  elsewhere  were  neces- 
sary to  advance  their  cause,  succors  less  becoming  their 
secluded,  peaceful,  and  unworldly  character.  On  a 
sudden,  Eutyches,  from  the  all-honored  and  boastful 
champion  of  orthodoxy,  to  his  own  surprise  (fur  in 
justice  to  him  he  seems  to  have  had  no  very  distinct 
notions  of  his  own  heterodoxy),1  is  arraigned,  con- 
demned, and  finally  branded  to  posterity  as  the  head 
of  a  new  and  odious  heresy. 

1  Leo  writes  of  him  with  sovereign  contempt :  "  Qui  ne  ipsius  quidem 
tymboli  initia  comprehendit."    This  old  man  has  not  learned  what  are  the 
i  of  the  Christians.    Ad  Flavian. 


CHAP.  IV.  EUTTCHES  ACCUSED.  283 

In  a  Synod  held  at  Constantinople,  under  the  Bishop 
Flavianus,  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Doryleum,  Eutyches 
solemnly  charged  Eutyches  with  denying  the  *° 
two  natures  in  Christ.  Thrice  was  Eutyches  sum- 
moned before  this  tribunal,  thrice  he  resisted  or  eluded 
the  formal  citation.  He  declared  himself  bound  by  a 
vow  not  to  quit  his  monastery ;  a  vow  which,  as  his 
adversaries  reminded  him,  he  had  not  very  religiously 
respected  during  the  tumults  against  Nestorius:  he 
pleaded  bad  health ;  he  promised  to  come  forward  on 
a  future  day.  At  length  he  condescended  to  appear, 
but  environed  by  a  rout  of  turbulent  monks,  and  with 
an  Imperial  officer,  Florianus,  who  demanded  to  take 
his  place  in  the  Synod.  The  affair  now  proceeded 
with  more  decent  gravity.  The  charge  was  made  bv 
Eusebius,  who  had  practised  in  the  schools  as  a  Master 
of  Rhetoric.1  Eutyches  in  vain  struggled  to  extricate 
himself  from  the  grasp  of  the  rigid  logician.  He  took 
refuge  in  vague  and  ambiguous  expressions,  he  equivo- 
cated, he  contradicted  himself;  his  merciless  antagonist 
pressed  him  in  his  dialectic  toils,  and  at  length  extorted 
the  heretical  confession :  the  two  natures  which  were 
distinct  before  the  Incarnation,  in  the  Christ  were 
blended  and  confounded  in  one.  The  Synod  heard 
the  confession  with  horror,  amazement,  and  regret; 
the  awful  sentence  of  excommunication  was  Excommn- 
passed ;  the  implacable  assertor  of  orthodoxy  M 
against  Nestorius  found  himself  cast  forth  as  a  con- 
victed and  proscribed  author  of  heresy. 

But  this  grave  ecclesiastical  proceeding  has  another 
side.  The  secret  history  of  the  times,  preserved  by  a 
later  but  trustworthy  authority,  if  it  does  not  A.D.  441. 

1  Evagrius. 


284  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  TL 

resolve  the  whole  into  a  wretched  court  intrigue, 
connects  it  too  closely  with  the  rise  and  fall  of  con- 
flicting female  influence,  and  the  power  of  an  Eunuch 
minister.1  The  sage  and  virtuous  Pulcheria  had  long 
ruled  with  undisputed  sway  the  feeble  mind  of  her 
Imperial  brother,  Theodosius  II.  Chrysaphius  the 
Eunuch  had  risen  to  the  chief  administration  of  public 
affairs.  He  was  scheming  to  balance,  or  entirely  to 
overthrow  the  authority  of  Pulcheria  by  the  influence 
of  the  Empress,  the  beautiful  Eudocia.  Chrysaphius 
was  the  godson  of  Eutyches.  He  had  hoped  to  raise 
the  monk  to  the  see  of  Constantinople.  The  elevation 
of  Flavianus  crossed  these  designs.  But  Chrysaphius 
did  not  despair  of  his  end ;  he  still  hoped  to  expel 
Flavianus  from  the  throne,  and  replace  him  by  his  own 
spiritual  father.  Either  to  estrange  the  mind  of  the 
Emperor  from  Flavianus,  or  to  gratify  his  own  rapac- 
ity, he  demanded  the  customary  present  to  the  Em- 
peror on  the  Prelate's  inauguration.  Flavianus  ten- 
dered three  loaves  of  white  bread.  The  minister 
indignantly  rejected  this  poor  offering,  and  demanded 
a  considerable  weight  of  gold.  Such  offering  Fla- 
vianus could  only  furnish  by  a  sacrilegious  invasion  of 
the  treasures,  or  profanation  of  the  sacred  vessels  of 
the  Church.  This  quarrel  was  hardly  appeased  when 
Chrysaphius  endeavored,  with  more  dangerous  friend- 
ship, to  implicate  Flavianus  in  his  own  intrigues 
against  Pulcheria.  Flavianus  not  merely  eluded  the 
snare,  but  the  Eunuch  suspected  the  Bishop  of  betray- 
ing his  secret  designs.  Eusebius,  the  antagonist  of 
Eutyches,  was  of  the  party  of  Pulcheria  before  his 
advancement  to  the  see  of  Doryleum ;  he  had  held  a 

1  Theophanes,  Chronog.  p.  153.    Edit.  Bonn. 


CHAP.  IV.  EUTYCHES  APPEALS.  285 

civil  office,  probably  in  the  household  of  the  Emperor's 
sister.  He  had  been  an  early  and  an  ardent  adversary 
of  Nestorius ;  he  now  stood  forward  as  the  accuser  of 
the  no  less  heretical  Eutyches. 

But  Eutyches  was  too  powerful  in  the  support  of 
his  faithful  monks,  and  in  the  favor  of  the  Eutyches 
minister,  to  submit  either  to  the  Bishop  of  aPPeals- 
Constantinople,  or  to  a  local  Synod.  He  appealed  to 
Christendom  —  from  the  Metropolitan  of  Constanti- 
nople to  the  Metropolitans  of  Jerusalem,  Thessalonica, 
Alexandria,  and  Rome.  He  accused  the  Bishops  at 
Constantinople  of  forging  or  of  altering  the  Acts  of 
their  Synod.  He  demanded  a  General  Council  to 
examine  his  opinions.  The  Emperor,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Chrysaphius,  acceded  to  the  request;  the 
Council  was  summoned  to  meet  at  Ephesus,  under 
the  presidency  of  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria.  Letters 
were  despatched  to  the  West  by  both  parties,  by 
Eutyches  not  only  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  to 
the  Bishop  of  Ravenna,1  and  no  doubt  to  others. 
The  support  of  Leo  was  too  important  not  to  be 
sought  with  earnest  solicitude.  But  Eutyches  ad- 
dressed him  as  a  suppliant,  imploring  his  protection 
against  injustice  and  persecution ;  Flavianus  as  an 
equal,  who  condescended  to  inform  his  brother  Bish- 
op of  the  measures  which  he  had  taken  against  an 
heretical  subject  of  his  diocese,  and  requested  him 
to  communicate  the  decree  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
Synod  to  his  brethren  in  the  West.  The  consentient 
voice  of  Leo  might  restore  peace  to  Christendom. 

1  The  answer  of  the  Bishop  of  Ravenna  is  extant  in  the  works  of  S.  Leo. 
Epist.  xxv.  The  close,  in  which  Chrysologus  defers  most  humbly  to  Rome, 
Beems  to  me  suspicious. 


286  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IL 

But  Leo  was  too  wise  to  be  deluded  by  tbe  servility 
of  Eutyches,  or  offended  by  the  stately  courtesy  of 
Flavianus.1  He  waited  to  form  his  decision  ^dth 
cautious  dignity. 

At   Ephesus   met   that    assembly   which   has   been 
council  caii-  branded  by  the  odious  name  of  the  "  Rob- 
of     ber  Synod."    But  it  is  difficult  to  discover  in 


is.  Aug.  .  .  .  .          .          ..  -     . 

8,  A.  D.  «9.  what  respect,  either  in  the  legality  or  its 
convocation,  or  the  number  and  dignity  of  the  assem- 
bled prelates,  consists  its  inferiority  to  more  received 
and  honored  Councils.  Two  Imperial  Commissioners, 
Elpidius  and  Eulogius,  attended  to  maintain  order  in 
the  Council,  and  peace  in  the  city.  Dioscorus,  the 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  by  the  Imperial  command 
assumed  the  presidency.2  The  Bishops  who  formed 
the  Synod  of  Constantinople  were  excluded  as  par- 
ties in  the  transaction,  but  Flavianus  took  his  place, 
with  the  Metropolitans  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem, 
and  no  less  than  three  hundred  and  sixty  bishops 
and  ecclesiastics.  Three  ecclesiastics,  Julian,  a  Bish- 
op, Renatus,  a  Presbyter,  and  Hilarius,  a  Deacon, 

1  Quesnel  and  Pagi  on  one  side,  Baronius  and  the  Ballerinis  on  the  other, 
contest  the  relative  priority  of  two  letters  addressed  by  Flavianus  to  Leo. 
The  question  in  debate  is  whether  Flavianus  initiated  an  appeal  to  Rome. 
But  neither  of  them  contains  any  recognition  of  Leo's  authority.    In  the 
first,    according  to   Ballerini,  he  sends  the  account   of  the   proceedings. 
'Qare  *co2  T%V  afy>  daionjTa  yvovaav  TO.  /car*  avrov,  nuat  rotf  vrrd  T^V  oqv 
tieoaiptiav  refavai  tieoytfeordTotf  Ixiaitoirotf  dqljjv  Kaii/aoi  rijv  airov 
oWo£/3«av.  —  p.  757.    The  second  letter,  as  printed  by  the  Ballerinis,  is  in 
the  same  tone:   dituuov  6e  nal  rovro,  uf  ^yovfuu,  6t6axdrjvai  vp\f,  uf 
bri  K.  T.  X. 

2  Dioscorus  wanted  the  severe  and  unimpeached  austerity  of  Cyril.    He 
was  said  to  have  had  a  mistress  named  Irene.    He  is  the  subject  of  the 
well-known  epigram  which  illustrates  Alexandrian  wit  and  boldness  — 

"  EiprjvTi  iravreaaiv,"  'ETtff/to?rof  slnn 
H«f  dvvarai  irdvreao',  rjv  ftovof  Ivdov  e 


CHAP.  IV.  ROBBER  SYNOD.  287 

were  to  represent  the  Bishop  of  Rome.1  The  Abbot 
Barsumas  (this  was  an  innovation)  took  his  seat  in  the 
Council,  as  a  kind  of  representative  of  the  monks. 

Though  commenced  with  seeming  regularity,  the 
proceedings  of  the  assembly  soon  degenerated  into 
disgraceful  turbulence,  violence,  and  personal  conflict. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  in  this  respect  the 
Robber  Synod  only  too  faithfully  followed,  if  it  ex- 
ceeded, the  legitimate  and  (Ecumenic  Council  of 
Ephesus.  Its  acts  were  marked  with  the  same  in- 
decent precipitation ;  questions  were  carried  by  fac- 
tious acclamations  within,  and  the  Council  was  over- 
awed by  riotous  mobs  without.  But  that  which  was 
pardonable  and  even  righteous  zeal  in  the  cause  of 
Cyril,  was  sacrilegious  tumult  in  that  of  Eutyches : 
the  monks,  who  had  been  welcomed  and  encouraged 
as  holy  champions  of  the  faith  when  they  issued  from 
their  cells  to  affright  the  Emperor  into  the  condemna- 
tion of  Nestorius,  when  they  thronged  around  Euty- 
ches, became  a  mutinous  and  ignorant  rabble.2  » 

The  Egyptian  faction  (for  Dioscorus,  though  tyran- 
nical to  the  kindred  and  adherents  of  Cyril,  embraced 
his  opinions  with  the  utmost  ardor)  looked  to  this 
Council,  not  so  much  for  the  vindication  of  Eutyches, 
as  for  the  total  suppression  of  Nestorianism,  and,  no 
doubt,  the  abasement  of  Flavianus,  and  hi  the  person 
of  Flavianus,  of  the  aspiring  see  of  Constantinople. 
But  in  their  blind  heat  they  involved  themselves  with 
the  creed  of  Eutyches.  The  Council  commenced  with 
the  usual  formalities.  The  proposition  to  read  the  let- 

1  They  were  attended  by  Dulcitius,  a  notary.    S.  Leo.  and  Synod  Ephes. 
One  Bishop,  Renatus,  had  died  on  the  road.    Hilarius  seems  to  have  taken 
the  lead  among  Leo's  legates. 

2  Compare  Walch,  p.  215. 


288  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

ters  of  Leo  to  Flavianus,  which  condemned  the  doc- 
trine of  Eutyches,  was  refused  with  the  utmost  con- 
tempt.1 Then  were  rehearsed  the  acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople.  On  the  first  mention  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ  an  angry  dispute  arose.  But  when 
the  question  put  to  Eutyches  by  Eusebius  of  Dorvleum 
was  read,  whether  he  acknowledged  the  two  natures 
Decree  of  the  after  the  incarnation,  the  assembly  broke  out 
A.p!n«9.  with  one  voice,  "  Away  with  Eusebius ! 
banish  Eusebius !  let  him  be  burned  alive !  As  he 
cuts  asunder  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  so  be  he  cut 
asunder !  "  The  President  put  the  question,  "  Is  the 
doctrine  that  there  are  two  natures  after  the  incarna- 
tion to  be  tolerated?"  The  sacred  Council  replied, 
"  Anathema  on  him  who  so  says  ! "  "I  have  your 
voices,"  said  Dioscorus,  "  I  must  have  your  hands  ! 
He  that  cannot  cry,  let  him  lift  up  his  hands !  "  With 
an  unanimous  suffrage  the  whole  assembly  proclaimed, 
"  Accursed  be  he  who  says  there  are  two ! "  The 
Council  proceeded  to  absolve  Eutyches  from  all  sus- 
picion of  heterodoxy,  and  to  reinstate  him  in  all  his 
ecclesiastical  honors;  to  depose  Flavianus  and  Euse- 
bius, and  to  deprive  them  of  all  their  dignities.  Fla- 
vianus alone  pronounced  his  appeal ;  Hilarius,  the 
Roman  deacon,  alone  refused  his  assent.2  The  una- 
nimity of  the  assembly  is  unquestionable,  but  it  is 
asserted,  and  on  strong  grounds,  that  it  was  an  unanim- 
ity enforced  by  the  dread  of  the  imperial  soldiery  and 

1 "  Quern  Alexandrinus  antistes,  qui  totum  solus  fbi  potentiae  suae  vindi- 
cavit,  audire  contempsit,"  &KOVOOI  Karfimaev  in  the  Greek. — S.  Leon. 
Epist.  1.  ad  Constantinop.  Leo's  letter  exists  in  indifferent  Greek,  and 
worse  Latin,  dated  449,  Jan.  13. 

3  We  hear  nothing  of  the  other  legate  of  Leo,  the  Bishop  Julian :  the 
Presbyter  Renatus  was  dead. 


CHAP.  IV.  DEATH  OF  FLAVIANUS.  289 

the  savage  monks,  who  environed  and  even  broke  in, 
and  violated  the  sanctity  of  the  Council.1  Dioscorus 
pursued  his  triumph.  The  deposition  of  Ibas  of 
Edessa,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  Irenaeus  of  Tyre,  and 
of  others  who  were  suspected  of  Nestorianism,  or  at 
least  refused  to  subscribe  the  anathemas  of  Cyril,  was 
confirmed.  Domnus  of  Antioch  was  involved  in  their 
fete.  Hilarius  the  deacon  fled  to  Rome  ;  but  not  so 
fortunate  was  Flavianus.  After  suffering  personal  in- 
sults, it  is  said  even  blows,  from  the  furious  Dioscorus 
himself,  instigated  by  the  monk  Barsumas,  who  shouted 
aloud,  "Strike  him,  strike  him  dead!"  he  Death  of 
expired  after  a  few  days,  either  of  his  wounds,  Flavianus. 
of  exhaustion,  or  mental  suffering.  Thus  was  this  the 
first,  but  not  the  last,  Christian  Council  which  was  de- 
filed with  blood.2 

Alexandria  had  succeeded  in  dictating  its  doctrine 
to  the  whole  of  Christendom ;  the  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria had  triumphed  over  both  his  rivals,  had  deposed 
the  Metropolitan  of  Antioch,  and  the  more  dreaded 
Bishop  of  Eastern  Rome.  Nor  was  this  ah1.  An  Im- 
perial edict  avouched  the  orthodoxy  and  confirmed  the 
acts  of  the  second  Council  of  Ephesus.  It  involved 
Flavianus  and  Eusebius  in  the  charge  of  Nestorianism ; 
it  proscribed  Nestorianism  in  all  its  forms,  branding  it 
by  the  ill-omened  name  of  Simonianism :  it  forbade 
the  consecration  of  any  bishop  favorable  to  Nestorius 
or  Flavianus,  and  deposed  them,  if  unwarily  conse- 
crated :  it  condemned  all  worship  or  religious  meet- 
ings of  the  Nestorians  (and  all  who  were  not  Euty- 

1  See  the  evidence  of  Basil,  Bishop  of  Csesarea. 

2  Leo,  writing  from  the  report  of  Hilarius,  the  Deacon,  "  Magnum  facinus 
Alexandrine  Episcopo  auct&re  vel  executor e  commission  est."  — Epist.  ad 
Anat. 

VOL.  i.  19 


290  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

chians  were  in  danger  of  being  declared  Nestorians), 
under  the  penalty  of  confiscation  and  exile  ;  and  inter- 
dicted the  reading  of  all  Nestorian  books,  which  are 
ranked  with  the  anti-Christian  writings  of  Porphyry ; 
that  is,  the  Avorks  of  Nestorius  and  of  Theodoret,  and 
according  tc  one  copy  of  the  law,  those  of  Diodorus  and 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  also,  under  the  same  penalties. 

But  the  law  might  command,  it  could  not  enforce 
peace.  Eastern  Christendom  was  severed  into  two 
conflicting  parties.  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Thrace  ad- 
hered to  Dioscorus,  while  the  rest  of  Asiatic  Christen- 
dom, Pontus  and  Asia  Minor,  still  clung  to  the  cause 
of  Flavianus.1  Strengthened  by  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  West,  which  entered  so  reluctantly  into 
these  fine  metaphysical  subtleties,  Leo,  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  refused  all  recognition  of  the  Ephesian  Council. 
Dioscorus,  in  the  heat  of  his  passion  and  the  pride  of 
success,  broke  off  (an  unheard  of  and  unprecedented 
boldness)  all  communion  with  Rome. 

A  sudden  and  total  revolution  at  once  took  place. 
The  change  was  wrought,  —  not  by  the  commanding 
voice  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  —  not  by  the  argu- 
mentative eloquence  of  any  great  writer,  who  by  his 
surpassing  abilities  awed  the  world  into  peace,  —  not 
by  the  reaction  of  pure  Christian  charity,  drawing  to- 
gether the  conflicting  parties  by  evangelic  love.  It 
was  a  new  dynasty  on  the  throne  of  Constantinople. 

The  feeble  Theodosius  dies ;  the  masculine  Pulche- 
ria  —  the  champion  and  the  pride  of  orthodoxy  —  the 
friend  of  Flavianus  and  of  Leo,  ascends  the  throne, 
and  gives  her  hand,  with  a  share  in  the  empire,  to  a 
brave  soldier  named  Marcianus. 

1  Liberal.  Brev.  c.  xii. 


CHAP.  IV.  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON. 

The  hopes  of  one  party,  and  the  apprehensions  of 
the  other,  were  realized  with  the  utmost  rapidity.  The 
first  act  of  the  Government,  which  Anatolius,  the  new 
bishop,  who,  though  nominated  by  the  Egyptian  .party, 
was  a  moderate  prudent  man,  either  acquiesced  in  or 
promoted,  was  the  quiet  removal  of  Eutyches  from  the 
city.  This  measure  was  confirmed  by  a  synod  at  Con- 
stantinople. 

A  more  full  and  authoritative  Council  could  alone 
repeal  the  acts  of  the  "  Robber  Synod  "  of  Ephesus. 
The  only  opposition  to  the  summons  of  such  Council 
at  Chalcedon  arose  from  Leo.  The  Roman  Pontiff 
had  urged  on  the  Western  Emperor  (it  is  said,  on  his 
knees)  the  necessity  for  a  general  Council ;  but  Leo 
desired  a  Council  in  Italy,  where  no  one  could  dispute 
the  presidency  of  the  Roman  prelate.  Prescient,  it 
might  seem,  of  the  decree  at  Chalcedon,  which  raised 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  an  equality  with  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  he  dreaded  the  convocation  of  a 
Council  in  the  precincts  and  under  the  immediate  influ- 
ence of  the  Byzantine  court. 

At  Chalcedon,  the  Asiatic  suburb  of  Constantinople, 
met  that  assembly,  which  has  been  admitted  council  of 
to  rank  as  the  fourth,  by  some  as  the  last,  of  oct^'sT*01 
the   great   CEcumenic  Councils.     Anatolius,  A'D' 4  ' 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was  present,  with  Maximus 
of   Antioch,   and  Juvenalis    of   Jerusalem.     Leo    ap- 
pointed as  his  representatives  two  bishops  and  a  presby- 
ter.1    Above  five  hundred  bishops  2  made  their  appear- 

1  Paschasinus,  Bishop  of  Lilybaeum,  Lucentius,  Bishop  of  Esculanum 
(Ascoli),  Boniface,  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

2  This  is  the  number  in  the  Breviarium:  Marcellinus  raises  the  number 
to  six  hur.dred  and  thirty.    Between  four  and  five  hundred  signatures  are 
ippended  to  the  acts. 


292  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H 

ance.  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  was  there,  but  sat 
not  in  the  order  of  his  rank,  and  was  not  allowed  the 
right  of  suffrage.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  claimed  his 
seat,  but  did  not  obtain  it  without  violent  resistance 
from  the  Egyptian  faction,  who  denounced  him  as  a 
Nestorian  :  his  own  party  retorted  charges  against  -the 
Egyptians,  as  persecutors  of  Flavianus,  and  as  Mani- 
cheans.  The  Imperial  Commissioners  reproved  with 
firmness,  and  repressed  with  dignity,  but  with  much 
difficulty,  these  rabble-like  proceedings.1 

The  first  act  of  the  Council,  after  the  decrees  of  the 
Synod  at  Ephesus  had  been  read,  was  to  annul  the 
articles  of  deposition  against  Flavianus  and  Eusebius. 
Many  of  the  bishops  expressed  their  penitence  at  their 
concurrence  in  these  acts :  some  saying  that  they  were 
compelled  by  force  to  subscribe  —  others  to  subscribe  a 
blank  paper.  The  Council  proceeded  to  frame  a  reso- 
lution, deposing  Dioscorus  and  five  other  bishops,  as 
having  iniquitously  exercised  undue  influence  in  the 
Oct.  10.  Council  of  Ephesus  ;  but  the  right  of  appro- 
bation of  this  decree  was  reserved  to  the  Emperor. 
During  the  whole  of  this  first  session,  Dioscorus  had 
confronted  his  adversaries  with  the  utmost  intrepidity, 
readiness,  and  self-command.  He  cried  aloud,  "  They 
are  condemning  not  me  alone,  but  Athanasius  and 
Cyril.  They  forbid  us  to  assert  the  two  natures  after 
the  incarnation."  The  night  drew  on  ;  Dioscorus  de- 
manded an  adjournment ;  the  Senate  refused  ;  the  acts 
were  read  over  by  torch-light.  The  bishops  of  Illyria 
proclaimed  their  abandonment  of  the  cause  of  Dios- 
corus. The  night  was  disturbed  by  wild  cries  of  accla- 

1  It  is  said  in  the  Breviar.  Hist.  Eutych.  that  the  Emperor  and  Senate 
irere  present    The  Senate  appears  in  the  acts. 


CHAP.  IV.          CONDEMNATION  OF  DIOSCORUS.  293 

mation  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Senate,  appeals  to  God, 
anathema  to  Dioscoms  — "  Christ  has  deposed  Dios- 
corus  —  Christ  has  deposed  the  murderer  —  God  has 
avenged  his  martyrs !  "  The  Council  at  the  next  ses- 
sion proceeded1  to  the  definition  of  the  true  faith.  The 
Creeds  of  Xicea  and  of  Constantinople,  the  two  Epis- 
tles of  Cyril,  and  above  ah1  the  Epistle  of  Leo  to  Fla- 
vianus,  were  recognized  as  containing  the  orthodox 
Christian  doctrine.  The  letter  of  Leo  excited  accla- 
mations of  unbounded  joy.  "  This  is  the  belief  of  the 
Fathers,  —  of  the  Apostles !  "  "  So  believe  we  all !  " 
"  Accursed  be  he  that  admits  not  that  Peter  has  spoken 
by  the  mouth  of  Leo  !  "  "  Leo  has  taught  what  is  right- 
eous and  true ;  and  so  taught  Cyril !  "  "  Eternal  be 
the  memory  of  Cyril !  "  "  Why  was  not  this  read 
at  Ephesus  ?  It  was  suppressed  by  Dioscorus  !  "  With 
this  there  was  again  a  strange  mingled  outcry  of  the 
Bishops,  confessing  their  sin  and  imploring  forgiveness, 
and  of  the  adversaries  of  Dioscorus,  chiefly  the  clergy 
of  Constantinople,  clamoring,  "  Away  with  the  Egyp- 
tian, the  Egyptian  into  exile !  " 

The  Imperial  Commissioners,  who,  with  some  few 
of  the  Bishops,  were  anxious  that  affairs  should  pro- 
ceed with  more  dignified  calmness,  hardly  restrained 
the  impulse  of  the  Council,  who  were  eager  to  pro- 
ceed by  acclamation,  and  at  once,  to  the  condemnation 
of  Dioscorus  ;  they  accused  him  of  being  a  Jew.  It 
would,  perhaps,  have  been  better  for  that  prelate,  if 
they  had  been  permitted  to  follow  their  impulse  ;  for 
charges  now  began  to  multiply  and  to  darken  against 
the  falling  Patriarch  —  charges  of  disloyalty,  Con(jemnat5on 
of  tyranny,  of  rapacity,  of  incontinence. of  Dioscorus 
Thrice  was  he  summoned  to  appear  (he  had  not  been 


294  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  H. 

permitted  to  resume  his  seat,  or  had  withdrawn  during 
the  stormy  course  of  the  proceedings),  thrice  he  diso- 
beyed, or  attempted  to  elude  the  summons.  The  sol- 
emn sentence  was  then  pronounced  by  one  of  the 
Western  Bishops,  the  representatives  of  Leo.  It 
stated  that  Dioscorus,  sometime  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
had  been  found  guilty  of  divers  ecclesiastical  offences. 
To  pass  over  many,  he  had  admitted  Eutyches,  a  man 
under  excommunication  by  lawful  authority,  into  com- 
munion ;  he  had  haughtily  repelled  all  remonstrances ; 
he  had  refused  to  read  the  Epistle  of  Leo  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ephesus ;  he  had  even  aggravated  his  guilt  by 
daring  to  place  the  Bishop  of  Rome  himself  under  in- 
Oct.  is.  terdict.  Leo,  therefore,  by  their  voice,  and 
with  the  authority  of  the  Council,  in  the  name  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  the  Rock  and  Foundation  of  the 
Church,  deposes  Dioscorus  from  his  episcopal  dignity, 
and  excludes  him  from  all  Christian  rights  and  privi- 
leges. The  unanimous  Council  subscribes  the  judg- 
ment.1 

The  decree  was  temperate  and  dignified;  it  con- 
tamed  no  unfair  or  exaggerated  accusations  ;  though  it 
might  dwell  with  undue  weight  on  the  insulting  con- 
duct towards  Leo,  it  condescended  to  no  fierce  and 
abusive  appellations.  Nor  was  the  grave  majesty  of 
the  assembly  disturbed  by  a  desperate  rally  of  the 
Barsumas  monks,  headed  by  Barsumas.  This  man,  as 
>nk'  not  unjustly  suspected  of  being  implicated  in 

1  It  is  remarkable  that  the  decree  took  no  notice  of  the  various  imputa- 
tions of  heresy  against  Dioscorus,  none  of  the  accusations  of  murder  said 
to  have  been  perpetrated  by  him  in  Alexandria.  Compare  especially  the 
libel  of  Ischyrion  the  Deacon,  who  offers  to  substantiate  his  charges  by 
witnesses.  Either  Dioscorus  was  one  of  the  most  wicked  of  men,  or  Ischy- 
rion the  most  audacious  of  calumniators.  — Labbe,  p.  398-400. 


CHAP.  IV.  BAKSUMAS  THE  MONK.  29c 

the  death  of  Flavianus,  the  assembly  refused  to  admit 
to  the  honors  of  a  seat.  Repelled  on  all  sides,  and 
awed  by  the  Imperial  power,  the  monks  appealed  to 
Christ  from  Csesar,  shook  their  garments  in  contempt 
of  the  Council,  and  as  a  protest  against  the  injustice 
done  to  Dioscorus ;  and  then  sullenly  retired  to  then: 
solitudes  to  brood  over  and  propagate  in  secret  their 
Monophysite  doctrines.  Some  of  their  traditions  assert, 
in  characteristic  language,  that  Barsuinas,  thus  igno- 
minioosly  expelled  by  the  Council  and  by  the  Emperor, 
pronoinced  his  curse  against  Pulcheria.  She  died  a 
few  days  afterwards,  and  Barsumas,  while  he  took  rank 
among  his  followers  as  a  prophet  and  man  of  God,  be- 
came from  that  time  an  object  of  cruel  and  unrelenting 
persecution  by  his  enemies. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  formulary  of  faith  adopted 
finally  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  was  brought  for- 
ward by  the  Imperial  Commissioners.  After  much  al- 
tercation and  delay,  it  received  at  length  the  sanction 
of  the  Council.  After  this  the  Civil  Government  (the 
Emperor  Marcian)  issued  two  laws,  addressed  to  all 
orders,  to  the  clergy,  to  the  military,  and  to  the  com- 
monalty ;  one  prohibited  the  future  agitation  of  these 
questions,  as  tending  to  tumult :  it  denounced  as  the 
penalty  for  offences  against  the  statute,  degradation  to 
the  ecclesiastic,  to  the  soldier  ignominious  expulsion 
from  the  army,  to  the  common  man  exile  from  the  Im- 
perial city.1  The  second  decree  confirmed  all  the  pro- 
ceedings at  Chalcedon,  enforced  on  the  public  mind 
the  deferential  conclusion,  that  no  private  man  could 
hope  to  arrive  at  a  sounder  understanding  of  these 

1  A  strong  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  against  simony  implies 
that  the  benefices  in  the  East,  as  in  the  West,  were  highly  lucrative. 


296  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

mysteries  than  had  been  painfully  attained  by  so  many 
holy  bishops,  and  only  after  much  prayer  and  profound 
investigation.  The  punishment  of  dissent  was  left  in- 
definite and  at  the  will  of  the  civil  rulers. 

But  before  the  final  dissolution  of  the  Council  at 
Chalcedon,  among  thirty  canons  on  ecclesiastical  sub- 
jects, appeared  one  of  singular  importance  to  Christen- 
dom. It  asserted  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See, 
not  in  right  of  its  descent  from  St.  Peter,  but  solely  as 
the  Bishopric  of  the  Imperial  City.  It  assigned,  there- 
fore, to  the  Bishop  of  the  New  Rome,  as  equal  in  civil 
dignity,  a  coequal  and  coordinate  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity.1 This  canon,  it  is  averred,  was  passed  by  a  few 
bishops,  who  lingered  behind  the  rest  of  the  Council  ; 
it  claims  only  the  subscription  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
prelates,  and  those  chiefly  of  the  diocese  of  Constan- 
tinople. It  is  not  indeed  likely  that  the  Alexandrian 
Church,  though  depressed  by  the  ignominious  degrada- 
tion of  its  head,  still  less  that  the  more  ancient 
Churches  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  should  thus 
tamely  acquiesce  in  the  assumption  of  superiority  (un- 
less it  were  a  measure  enforced  by  the  Imperial  power) 
by  the  modern  and  un-Apostolic  Church  of  Byzan- 
tium.2 Leo  from  this  period  denounces  the  arrogance 


1  Ko2  y&p  TU  i9pov<y  r^f  irpea^vrepaf  Pufiijf,  6ut  rd  flaaifeveiv  TJ)V 
iKEivrjv,  ol  irdrepef  ekorwf  dnodeduKaai  TO,  irpea(3ela.  —  Can.  xxviii.  p.  769. 

2  Leo,  in  his  three  epistles  on  the  subject,  seems  to  espouse  the  cause  of 
Antioch  and  Alexandria,  as  insulted  by  their  degradation  from  the  second 
and  third  rank  ;  rivalry  with  Rome  on  their  part  is  a  pretension  of  which  he 
will  not  condescend  to  entertain  a  suspicion.    "  Tanquam  opportune  se 
tempus  hoc  tibi  obtulerit,  quo  secundi  honoris  privilephim  sedes  Alexandrina 
perdiderit,  et  Antiochena  Ecclesia  proprietatem  tertice  dignitatis  atniserit, 
at  his  locis  juri  tuo  subditis,  Metropolitan!  Episcopi  proprio  honore  priven- 
tnr."  —  Epist.  liii.:  ad  Anatol.  Const.  Episc.    The  Bishop  of  Rome  rebukes 
the  ambition  of  his  brother  prelate  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  Be  not  high- 
minded,  but  fear!  !  " 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  BISHOP   OF  ROME.  297 

and  presumption  of  Anatolius,  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople ;  and  this  canon  of  the  (Ecumenic  Council  has 
been  refused  all  validity  in  the  West. 

Throughout  this  long  and  melancholy  ecclesiastical 
civil  war,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  could  not  but  continue 
to  rise  in  estimation  and  reverence,  and  in  their  insep- 
arable result,  authority.  While  the  East  had  thus 
been  distracted  in  every  province,  the  West  had  en- 
joyed almost  profound  religious  peace.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  time  contributed  to  this  state  of  things; 
the  preoccupation  of  the  whole  Western  empire  by  the 
terrors  of  the  most  formidable  invasion  which  had  ever 
menaced  society ;  the  general  disinclination  to  those 
fine  theologic  distinctions,  which  rose  out  of  the  Grecian 
schools  of  philosophy ;  and,  perhaps,  the  desolation  by 
the  savage  Vandals  of  the  African  Churches,  which 
were  most  likely  to  plunge  hotly  into  such  disputes, 
and  to  drag  with  them  the  rest  of  Latin  Christendom. 
During  the  whole  feud  the  predecessors  of  Leo,  and 
Leo  himself,  had  calmly  and  firmly  adhered  to  those 
doctrines  which  were  finally  received  as  orthodox. 
They  had  acted  by  common  consent  as  heads  and  rep- 
resentatives of  Western  Christendom,  and  had  fully 
justified  the  unquestioning  confidence  of  the  West  by 
their  congeniality  with  the  universal  sentiment.  Nor 
had  their  dignity  suffered  in  the  eyes  of  men  by  the 
humiliating  scenes  to  which  the  great  prelates  of  the 
East,  the  Metropolitans  of  Antioch,  of  Constantinople, 
and  Alexandria,  had  been  continually  exposed;  ar- 
raignment as  heretics,  as  criminals,  before  successive 
Councils,  deposition,  expulsion  from  their  sees,  excom- 
munication, exile,  even  death.  The  feeble  interdict 
issued  by  Dioscorus  against  Leo  might  have  been 


298  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

shaken  off  with  silent  contempt,  if  it  had  not  rather 
suited  him  to  treat  it  with  indignation.  Still  more  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  stood  uncontaminated,  in  digni- 
fied seclusion  from  the  wretched  intrigues  and  bribery, 
the  venal  favor  of  unpopular  ministers,  and  the  trem- 
bling dependence  on  Imperial  caprice.  Ever}'  year  be- 
came more  and  more  manifest  the  advantage  derived 
by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  from  the  abandonment  of 
Rome  as  the  Imperial  residence.  The  Metropolitan 
of  Constantinople  might  claim  by  an  ecclesiastical 
canon,  equality  with  the  Roman  Pontiff;  but  the  one 
was  growing  up  into  an  independent  Potentate,  while 
the  other,  living  under  the  darkening  shadow  of  Impe- 
rial pomp  and  power,  could  not  but  shrink  into  a  help- 
less instrument  of  the  Imperial  will.  The  fate  of  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  his  rank  and  his  authority 
in  the  Church,  even  his  orthodoxy,  depended  virtually 
on  the  decree  of  the  Emperor.  Appearing  in  all  the 
controversies  of  the  East  only  in  the  persons  of  his 
delegates,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  preserved  his  maj- 
esty uninsulted  and  unhumbled  by  the  degrading  in- 
vectives, altercations,  even  personal  contumelies,  which 
had  violated  the  sanctity  of  the  great  Eastern  prelates. 
Even  if  they  had  not  provoked;  if  they  had  borne 
with  the  most  saintly  patience  the  outrages  of  the  pop- 
ular or  monkish  rabble  at  Ephesus  or  Constantinople, 
in  the  general  mind  the  holy  character  could  not  but 
be  lowered  by  these  debasing  scenes. 

Leo  seemed  fully  to  comprehend  the  importance  and 
the  dignity  of  his  position.  He  took  the  most  zealous 
interest  in  the  whole  controversy,  but  his  activity  was 
grave,  earnest,  and  serious.  His  language  to  the  East- 
ern Emperors,  and  especially  to  the  Princess  Pulcheria, 
may  sound  too  adulatory  to  modern  ears.  The  divinity 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  HUNS.  299 

of  the  earthly  sovereign  was  acknowledged  in  terms 
too  nearly  approaching  that  reserved  for  the  great 
divine  Sovereign.  This,  however,  must  be  judged 
with  some  regard  to  the  sentiments  and  expressions 
of  the  age ;  and  his  deference  was  in  language  rather 
than  in  thought.  Leo  addresses  these  earthly  masters 
with  an  independence  of  opinion,  more  as  their  equal, 
almost  more  as  their  master,  than  would  have  been 
ventured  by  any  other  subject  at  that  time  in  either 
empire. 

In  the  West,  meantime,  Leo  might  seem,  under  the 
sole  impulse  of  generous  self-devotion  and  reliance  on 
the  majesty  of  religion,  to  assume  the  noblest  func- 
tion of  the  civil  power,  the  preservation  of  the  Empire, 
of  Italy,  of  Rome  itself,  of  Christianity,  from  the  most 
tremendous  enemy  which  had  ever  threatened  their 
freedom  and  peace.  While  the  Emperor  Valentinian 
III.  took  refuge  in  Rome,  and  rumors  spread  abroad 
of  his  meditated  flight,  abdication,  abandonment  of  his 
throne,  Leo  almost  alone  stood  fearless.  An  embassy, 
of  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  no  doubt  considered 
by  the  general  reverence  of  his  own  age,  as  well  as  by 
posterity,  as  the  head  and  chief,  arrested  the  terrible 
Attila  on  the  frontiers  of  Italy,  and  dispersed  the  host 
of  savage  and  but  half-human  Huns.  Leo,  to  grateful 
Rome,  might  appear  as  the 'peaceful  Camillus,  as  the 
unarmed  Marius,  repelling  invaders  far  more  fearful 
than  the  Gauls  or  the  Cimbrians. 

The  terror  of  Europe  at  the  invasion  of  the  Huns 
naturally  and  justifiably  surpassed  that  of  all  former  bar- 
baric invasions.  The  Goths  and  other  German  tribes 
were  familiar  to  the  sight  of  the  Romans  ;  some  of  them 
had  long  been  settled  within  the  frontier  of  the  empire  ; 
they  were  already  for  the  most  part  Christian,  and,  to 


300  LATIX  CHRISTLLNTTY.  BOOK  IL 

a  certain  extent,  Romanized  in  their  manners  and 
habits.  The  Mongol  race,  with  their  hideous,  mis- 
shapen, and,  as  they  are  described,  scarcely  human 
figures,  their  wild  habits,  their  strange  language,  their 
unknown  origin,  their  numbers,  exaggerated  no  doubt 
by  fear,  and  swollen  by  the  aggregation  of  all  the 
savage  tribes  who  were  compelled  or  eagerly  crowded 
to  join  the  predatory  warfare,  but  which  seemed  ab- 
solutely inexhaustible;  their  almost  unresisted  career 
of  victory,  devastation,  and  carnage,  from  the  remotest 
East  till  they  were  met  by  Aetius  on  the  field  of 
Chalons :  at  the  present  time  the  vast  monarchy 
founded  by  Attila,  which  overshadowed  the  whole 
Northern  frontier  of  the  Empire,  and  to  which  the 
Gothic  and  other  Teutonic  kings  rendered  a  compul- 
sory allegiance ;  their  successful  inroads  on  the  Eastern 
Empire,  even  to  the  gates  of  Constantinople  ;  the 
haughty  and  contemptuous  tone  in  which  they  con- 
ducted their  negotiations,  had  almost  appalled  the  Ro- 
man mind  into  the  apathy  of  despair.  Religion, 
instead  of  rousing  to  a  noble  resistance  against  this 
heathen  race,  which  threatened  to  overrun  the  whole 
of  Christendom,  by  acquiescing  in  Attila's  proud  ap- 
pellation, the  Scourge  of  God,  seemed  to  justify  a 
dastardly  prostration  before  the  acknowledged  en: 
of  the  divine  wrath.  The  spell,  it  is  true,  of  Attila's 
irresistible  power  had  been  broken ;  he  had  suffered  a 
great  defeat,  and  Gaul  was,  for  a  time  at  least,  wrested 
from  his  dominion  by  the  valor  and  generalship  of 
Aetius.  But  when,  infuriated,  as  it  might  seem,  more 
than  discouraged  by  his  discomfiture,  the  yet  formidable 
Hun  suddenly  descended  upon  Italy,  the  whole  penin- 
sula lay  defenceless  before  him.  Acting  as  is  most 
probable,  was  unable,  as  his  enemies  afterwards  de- 


CHAP.  IV.  INVASION  OF  ATTILA.  301 

clared,  was  traitorously  unwilling,  to  throw  himself 
between  the  barbarians  and  Rome.  The  last  struggles 
of  Roman  pride,  which  had  rejected  the  demand  of 
Attila  for  the  hand  of  the  Princess  Honoria  (Ms  self- 
offered  bride,  whose  strange  adventures  illustrate  the 
degradation  of  the  Imperial  family),  and  which  had 
been  delayed  by  the  obstinate  resistance  of  Aquileia  to 
the  whole  army  of  Attila,  were  crushed  by  the  fall  and 
utter  extermination  of  that  city,  and  the  total  subju- 
gation of  Italy  as  far  as  the  banks  of  the  Po.1  Valen- 
tinian,  the  Emperor,  fled  from  Ravenna  to  Rome.  To 
some  no  doubt  he  might  appear  to  seek  succor  at  the 
feet  of  the  Roman  Pontiff;  but  the  abandonment  of 
Italy  was  rumored  to  be  his  last  desperate  determina- 
tion. 

At  this  fearful  crisis,  the  insatiable  and  victorious 
Hun  seemed  suddenly  and  unaccountably  to  inTaSi0n  Of 
pause  in  his  career  of  triumph.  He  stood  At 
rebuked  and  subdued  before  a  peaceful  embassy,  of 
which,  with  the  greater  part  of  the  world,  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  as  he  held  the  most  conspicuous  station,  so 
he  received  almost  all  the  honor.  The  names  of  the 
rich  Consular  Avienus,  of  the  Prefect  of  Italy,  Trige- 
tius,  who  ventured  with  Leo  to  confront  the  barbarian 
conqueror,  were  speedily  forgotten ;  and  Leo  stands 
forth  the  sole  preserver  of  Italy.  On  the  shores  of  the 
Benacus  the  ambassadors  encountered  the  fearful  At- 
tila. Overawed  (as  the  belief  was  eagerly  propagated, 
and  as  eagerly  accepted)  by  the  personal  dignity,  the 
venerable  character,  and  by  the  religious  majesty  of 
Leo,  Attila  consented  to  receive  the  large  dowry  of 
the  Princess  Honoria,  and  to  retire  from  Italy.  The 

1  Compare  Gibbon,  c.  xxxv.    Observe  the  characteristic  words  of  JOT- 
aandes :  "  Dum  ad  aulse  decus  virginitatem  suam  cogeretur  custodire." 


302  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  11 

death  of  Attila  in  the  following  year,  by  the  bursting 
of  a  blood-vessel,  on  the  night  during  which  he  had 
wedded  a  new  wife,  may  have  been  brooding,  as  it 
were,  in  his  constitution,  and  somewhat  subdued  his 
fiercer  energy  of  ambition.  His  army,  in  all  proba- 
bility, was  weakened  by  its  conquests,  and  by  the 
uncongenial  climate  and  unaccustomed  luxuries  of 
Italy.  But  religious  awe  may  still  have  been  the 
dominant  feeling  which  enthralled  the  mind  of  Attila. 
The  Hun,  with  the  usual  superstitiousness  of  the 
polytheist,  may  have  trembled  before  the  God  of  the 
stranger,  whom  nevertheless  he  did  not  worship.  The 
best  historian  of  the  period  relates  that  the  fate  of 
Alaric,  who  had  survived  so  short  a  time  the  conquest 
of  Rome,  was  known  to  Attila,  and  seemed  to  have 
made  a  profound  impression  upon  him.1  The  daunt- 
A.B.  452.  less  confidence  and  the  venerable  aspect  of 
Leo  would  confirm  this  apprehension  of  encountering, 
as  it  were,  in  his  sanctuary  the  God  now  adored  by 
the  Romans.  Legend,  indeed,  has  attributed  the  sub- 
mission of  Attila  to  a  visible  apparition  of  the  Apostles 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  who  menaced  the  trembling 
heathen  with  a  speedy  divine  judgment  if  he  repelled 
the  proposals  of  their  successor.  But  this  materializ- 
ing view,  though  it  may  have  heightened  the  beauty  of 
Raffaelle's  painting  of  Leo's  meeting  with  Attila,  by 
the  introduction  of  preterhuman  forms,  lowers  the 
moral  grandeur  of  the  whole  transaction.  The  simple 
faith  in  his  God,  which  gave  the  Roman  Pontiff  cour- 
age to  confront  Attila,  and  threw  that  commanding 
majesty  over  his  words  and  actions  which  wrought 
upon  the  mind  of  the  barbarian,  is  far  more  Chris- 
tianly  sublime  than  this  unnecessarily  imagined  miracle, 
i  Priscus,  quoted  by  Joniandes,  c.  42. 


CHAP.  IT.  INVASION  OF  GENSERIC.  303 

The  incorrigible  Romans  alone,  in  their  inextinguish- 
able pagan  superstition,  or  their  ineradicable  pagan 
passion  for  the  amphitheatre,  attributed  the  deliverance 
of  the  city  not  to  the  intercession  of  Leo  (like  the  rest 
of  the  world),  or  to  the  mercy  of  God,  but  to  the 
influence  of  the  stars.  They  crowded  (to  his  indig- 
nation) to  the  Circensian  games,  rather  than  to  the 
tombs  of  the  martyrs.1  Leo  might  save  Rome  from 
the  sword  of  the  heathen  barbarian,  he  could  not  save 
it  from  the  vices  of  the  Christian  sovereign,  which 
were  precipitating  the  Western  Empire  to  its  fall,  and 
brought  down  on  Rome  a  second  capture,  more  de- 
structive than  that  of  the  Goth,  by  the  Vandal  Genseric. 
Valentinian  III.  had  taken  refuge  at  Rome;  but  he 
found  Rome  not  only  more  secure,  but  in  its  society, 
its  luxury,  and  its  dissoluteness,  a  more  congenial  scene 
for  his  license  than  the  confined  and  secluded  Ravenna. 
He  returned  to  it  to  indulge  more  freely  in  his  promis- 
cuous amours.  At  length  the  violation  of  the  wife 
of  a  Senator,  Petronius  Maximus,  of  the  highest  rank 
and  great  wealth,  caused  his  assassination.  In  Valen- 
tinian closed  the  Western  line  of  descendants  from  the 

1  "  Pudet  dicere,  sed  oportet  non  tacere:  plus  impenditur  daemoniis  quam 
apostolis,  et  majorem  obtinent  insana  spectacula  frequentiam,  quam  beata 
martyria." — S.  Leon.  Serm.  Ixxxiv.  lam  inclined  to  concur  with  Ba- 
ronius  (Annal.  sub  ann.)  rather  than  with  the  later  editors  of  S.  Leo's 
works,  Quesnel  and  the  Balerinis,  in  assigning  the  short  sermon  on  the 
Octave  of  St.  Peter  to  the  deliverance  from  Attila,  not  to  the  evacuation  of 
the  city  by  Genseric.  Ballerini's  view  seems  impossible.  The  death  of  the 
Emperor  Maxiinus  (see  below)  took  place  on  the  12th  of  June,  three  days 
after  Genseric  entered  the  city:  the  sack  of  the  city  lasted  fourteen  days, 
till  St.  Peter's  Day,  the  29th;  yet  Ballerini  would  suppose  that  on  the 
octave  of  that  day  the  Romans  were  so  far  recovered  from  their  consterna- 
tion, danger,  and  ruin,  as  to  celebrate  the  Circensian  games  at  great 
expense,  and  to  attend  them  in  multitudes,  which  provoked  the  holy 
indignation  of  the  bishop.  The  deliverance,  which  they  ascribed  to  the 
stars,  rather  than  to  the  mercy  of  God,  can  hardly  have  been  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  plundered  and  desolate  city,  with  hundreds  of  the  inhabitants 
carried  away  into  captivity. 


304  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

great  Theodosius.  The  vengeance  of  Maximus  was 
not  content  with  the  sceptre  of  the  murdered  Valen- 
tinian ;  he  compelled  Eudoxia,  the  Empress,  during 
the  first  months  of  her  widowhood,  to  receive  him 
as  her  husband;  and  in  the  carelessness  or  the  inso- 
lence of  his  triumph,  betrayed  his  own  complicity, 
which  was  before  doubtful,  in  the  assassination  of 
Valentinian.  Eudoxia  determined  on  revenge ;  from 
her  Imperial  kindred  in  the  East  she  could  expect  no 
succor ;  the  Vandal  fleets  covered  the  Mediterranean  ; 
Genseric,  not  satiated  with  the  conquest  of  Africa,  had 
already  subdued  Sicily.  At  the  secret  summons  of 
the  Empress  he  landed  with  a  powerful  force,  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Tiber.  The  defenceless  Romans  has- 
tened to  sacrifice  the  cause  of  their  calamities ;  they 
joined  the  followers  of  Eudoxia  in  a  general  insurrec- 
tion, in  which  the  miserable  Maximus  perished ;  his 
body  was  hewn  in  pieces  and  then  cast  into  the  Tiber.1 
But  the  ambition  and  the  rapacity  of  Genseric  were 
not  appeased  by  this  victim ;  he  advanced  towards 
Rome,  where  no  measures  of  defence  had  been  taken ; 
none  perhaps  could  have  been  organized  in  a  city 
without  a  ruler,  and  without  a  standing  force.  Leo 
was  again  the  only  safeguard  of  the  city ;  but  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  still  a  man  of  Christian  peace. 
Unarmed,  at  the  head  of  his  clergy,  he  issued  forth 
to  meet  the  invader;  and  though  the  Arian  Vandal, 
within  sight  of  his  prey,  and  actually  master  of  Rome, 
fitill  the  centre  of  riches  and  luxury,  Rome  open  to 
his  own  rapacity,  and  that  of  his  soldiers  —  was  less 
submissive  than  the  heathen  Hun ;  yet  even  he  con- 
A.D.  455.  sented  to  some  restraint  on  the  cruelty  and 

1  Procop.  Hist.  Vandal.    On  the  character  and  history  of  Maximus,  read 
Letter  of  Sidon.  Apollinar.  11, 13. 


CHAP.  IV.          PILLAGE  OF  ROME  BY  GENSERIC.  305 

license  which  attend  the  sack  of  a  captured  city.  The 
lives  of  those  who  offered  no  resistance  were  to  be 
spared ;  the  buildings  to  be  guarded  against  conflagra- 
tion, the  captives  protected  from  torture.  But  that 
was  all  (and  it  was  much  at  such  a  crisis)  which  the 
authority  of  the  Pontiff  could  obtain.  The  Roman 
Leo  with  the  rest  of  his  countrymen  must  witness, 
what  may  seem  to  have  aggravated  the  calamity  in 
the  estimation  of  the  world,  the  late  revenge  of  Car- 
thage, the  plunder  of  Rome  by  the  conquering  Afri- 
cans.1 In  the  pillage,  which  lasted  for  fourteen  days, 
if  the  edifices  were  spared,  the  treasuries  of  the 
churches  were  forced  to  surrender  all  which  they  had 
accumulated  from  the  pious  munificence  of  the  public, 
during  the  forty-five  years  which  had  elapsed  since  the 
sack  by  Alaric.2  It  has  been  observed  as  a  singular 
event  that  Genseric,  a  barbarian  from  the  shores  of 
the  Baltic,  compelled  Rome  to  surrender,  and  trans- 
ported to  the  shores  of  Africa  the  spoils  of  two  relig- 
ions. From  the  Temple  of  Peace  in  Rome  he  carried 
off  the  plunder  of  the  Jewish  Holy  of  Holies,  the  gold 
table  and  the  seven-branched  candlestick,  which  had 
been  deposited  as  trophies  by  the  Emperor  Titus. 
Roman  paganism  suffered  loss  no  less  insulting  than 
that  she  had  inflicted  on  Jerusalem.  The  statues  of 

1  See  the  spirited  lines  of  Sidonius,  — 

Heu  facinus !  in  bella  iterum  quartosque  labores 
Perfida  Elissese  crudescunt  classica  Byrsae. 
Nutriti?  quod  fata  maliim  !  Conscenderat  arces 
Evandri  Massyla  phalanx,  montesque  Quirini 
Marmarici  pressere  pedes,  rursusque  revexit 
Quae  captiva  dedit  quondam  stipendia  Barche. 

Sid.  ApoU.  Panegyric.  —  444. 

2  Leo  from  the  wreck  saved  three  large  silver  vessels,  of  100  pounds  each, 
which  he  caused  to  be  cast  into  communion  plate  for  the  other  destitute 
churches.     Baronius,   from  this,  and    other  equally  insufficient  reasons, 
infers  that  the  three  great  churches  of  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  and  the  Lateran 
(?)  escaped. 

VOL.  i.  20 


806  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II. 

the  gods  and  heroes  of  ancient  Rome  had  been  still 
permitted  to  adorn  the  Capitoline  Temple.  These, 
with  the  roof  of  gilt  bronze,  became  the  prey  of  the 
African  Vandals,  and  were  consigned  as  trophies  to 
Carthage.  Rome  thus  ceased  altogether  to  be  a  pa^in. 
city ;  and  Genseric  accomplished  what,  by  the  disper- 
sion of  the  old  pagan  families,  had  been  more  than 
begun  by  Alaric.  The  last  bond  was  broken  between 
Christian  Rome  and  the  religion  of  ancient  Rome. 
The  ship  which  bore  the  gods  of  Rome  to  Carthage 
foundered  at  sea.  The  amount  of  plunder  from  the 
Imperial  palace  and  those  of  the  still  wealthy  nobil- 
ity, from  the  temples  and  the  churches,  is  vaguely 
stated  at  many  thousand  talents.  The  Vandal  ava- 
rice stooped  to  the  meaner  metals ;  the  copper  and 
the  brass  were  swept  away  with  remorseless  rapacity. 
The  Roman  aristocracy,  which  had  been  scattered  to  so 
great  an  extent  by  the  conquest  of  Alaric,  were  now  in 
numbers  carried  away  into  captivity ;  families  were 
broken  up,  wives  separated  from  husbands,  children 
from  parents.  Even  the  Empress  Eudoxia  and  her 
daughters,  the  sole  survivors  of  the  Western  line  of 
Theodosius,  were  transported  as  honorable  bond-slaves 
to  Carthage ;  one  of  the  daughters,  Eudocia,  Genseric 
married  to  his  son  ;  the  mother  and  the  other  daughtetfj 
who  was  already  married  he  released  at  the  request  of  the 
Byzantine  Emperor  Leo,  and  sent  them  to  Constantino- 
ple. But  with  every  successive  decimation  which  thus 
fell  on  the  Roman  nobility,  the  relative  importance  of 
the  clergy  must  have  increased,  as  did  that  of  the  Pon- 
tiff, from  the  absence  of  the  Emperor  from  the  capital. 
Rome,  after  the  departure  of  Genseric's  fleet,  laden  with 
the  spoils  and  crowded  with  captives,  selected  for  their 
rank,  their  accomplishments,  the  females  no  doubt  for 


CHAP.  IV.        PILLAGE  OF  ROME  BY  GENSERIC.  807 

their  beauty  or  for  their  easy  submission  to  the  will 
of  the  conquerer,  was  left  without  government,  almost 
without  social  organization,  except  that  of  the  Church. 
The  first  Emperor  who  aspired  to  the  succession  of 
Maximus  was  Avitus  in  Gaul. 

The  calamity  which  could  not  be  averted  by  the 
commanding  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  was 
mitigated  by  the  active  and  judicious  charity  of  the 
Bishop  of  Carthage.  Deo  Gratias,  by  the  manner  in 
which  he  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  the  wretched 
captives  dragged  away  from  Rome,  has  extorted  the 
sincere  admiration  of  an  historian  in  general  too  blind 
to  the  true  beauty  of  the  Christian  religion.1  The 
Bishop  of  Carthage  had  no  scruple  in  sacrificing  that 
which  had  been  offered  to  give  splendor  to  the  worship 
of  God,  to  the  more  holy  object  of  alleviating  human 
misery.  In  order  to  reunite  those  who  had  been 
severed  by  the  cruelty  or  the  covetousness  of  the 
conquerors  —  the  husbands  from  the  wives,  the  parents 
from  their  children  —  he  sold  all  the  gold  and  silver 
vessels  belonging  to  the  churches  of  his  diocese.  Dis- 
eases and  sicknesses  followed  this  sudden  and  violent 
change  of  life.  To  mitigate  these  sufferings  he  con- 
verted two  large  churches  into  hospitals,  furnished 
them  with  beds  and  mattresses,  and  with  a  daily  allow- 
ance of  food  and  medicine.  The  good  bishop  himself 
by  night  and  day  accompanied  the  physicians,  visiting 
every  bed,  and  adding  the  comforts  of  tender  and  affec- 
tionate sympathy  and  of  gentle  Christian  advice,  to 
the  substantial  gifts  of  food  and  the  proper  remedies.2 
The  aged  man  wore  himself  out  in  these  cares.  He 
may  have  been  obnoxious  on  other  accounts  to  the 
1  Gibbon.  2  Gibbon  well  describes  this. 


308  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  II 

Arian  rulers,  and  may  have  escaped  the  persecutions 
with  which  Genseric  and  the  Vandals  afterwards  af- 
flicted the  African  Churches  by  his  timely  death ; J 
but  \he  judgment  must  be  strangely  infected  with  the- 
ological hatred  which  would  suppose  that  his  life  was 
endangered  by  the  jealousy  of  the  Arians  at  these 
acts  of  true  Christian  mercy.2 

The  sudden  but  brief  and  transitory  effort  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  under  Majorian,  to  arrest  its  hasten- 
ing extinction,  to  resume  something  of  its  ancient 
energy,  to  mitigate  the  calamities,  and  avert  the  im- 
pending disorganization  by  wise  legislation,3  by  the 
remission  of  burdensome  taxation,  by  the  restoration 
of  the  municipal  government  in  the  cities  —  this  last 
and  exhausting  paroxysm  of  strength  continued  till 
the  close  of  the  Pontificate  of  Leo.  But  it  was  too 
late ;  wisdom  and  virtue,  at  certain  periods,  are  as 
fatal  to  those  at  the  head  of  affairs,  as  improvidence 
and  vice.  He  that  would  stem  a  torrent  at  its  fall 
is  swept  away.  Majorian  perished  through  a  lawless 
conspiracy,  as  though  he  had  been  the  worst  of  tyrants. 
The  last  of  the  Roman  Emperors  who  showed  any- 
thing of  the  Roman  in  his  character,  and  the  Pontiff 
who,  in  a  truly  Roman  spirit,  chiefly  founded  her 
spiritual  empire,  were  coincident  in  the  period  of  their 
death.4  Majorian  died  in  the  year  461,  leaving  the 

i  Victor.  Vit.  de  Pereecut.  Vandal. 

3  This  is  the  charitable  conclusion  of  Baronios :  "  Quo  livore  Ariani  suc- 
censi,  dolis  eum  quam  plurimis  voluemnt  wepius  enecare.     Quod,  credo, 
pnevidens  Dominus  passerem  suum  de  manibus  accipitium  voluit  liberate." 
—  Annal.  sub  ann.  453. 

•  Compare  the  laws  of  Majorian  at  the  end  of  the  Codex  Theodosianus. 

4  Leo  was  still  occupied  by  the  disputes  in  the  East,  which  followed  the 
condemnation  of  Eutychiani.«m  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  this  sub- 
ject will  be  continuously  treated  in  the  following  Book. 


CHAP.  IV.         FOUNDATION  OF  THE  POPEDOM.  309 

affairs  of  Rome  and  the  still  subject  provinces  in 
irrecoverable  anarchy.  One  or  two  obscure  names 
fill  up  the  barren  annals,  till  the  Western  Empire 
expired  in  the  person  of  Augustulus.  Leo  died  in 
the  same  year,  leaving  a  regular  succession  of  Pon- 
tiffs, who  gradually  rose  to  increasing  temporal  influ- 
ence, which,  nevertheless,  was  entirely  subordinate  to 
the  barbarian  kings  of  Italy,  the  Herulian  and  the 
Ostro-Gothic  line,  till,  after  the  reconquest  of  Italy 
by  the  Eastern  Emperor,  and  the  gradual  abandon- 
ment of  Justinian's  conquests  by  his  feebler  successors, 
the  Popes  became  great  temporal  potentates. 

Latin  Christianity,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth,  and 
during  the  first  decennial  period  of  the  fifth  century, 
had  produced  three  of  her  great  fathers  —  the  foun- 
ders of  her  doctrinal  and  disciplinarian  system  —  Je- 
rome, Ambrose,  Augustine ;  Jerome,  if  not  the  father, 
the  faithful  and  zealous  guardian  of  her  young  monas- 
ticism,  Ambrose  of  her  sacerdotal  authority,  Augustine 
of  her  theology. 

Before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  the  two 
great  founders  of  the  Popedom,  Innocent  I.  and  Leo 
I.,  (singularly  enough,  each  contemporary  with  one  of 
the  sieges  and  sacks  of  Imperial  Rome  by  Teutonic 
barbarians,)  had  laid  deep  the  groundwork  for  the 
Western  spiritual  monarchy  of  Rome.  That  monar- 
chy must  await  the  close  of  the  sixth  century  to  behold 
her  fourth  Father,  the  author,  if  we  may  so  speak,  of 
her  popular  religion,  and  the  third  great  founder  of 
the  Papal  authority,  not  only  over  the  minds,  but 
over  the  hearts  of  men  —  Gregory  the  Great. 


310 


LATIN  CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK  HI 


BOOK  IE.    CONTEMPORARY  CHRONOLOGY. 


FiTii*tc«i  or 


T..Bm.    m 


Nte. 

m 

«S 


CS.8tepb.mIL 
«LS«cp6t«nL 


CH.  llMhhi      HI 


m.  ma 


He.  !-*>«•.        Mi 


JT4.  ••!«!>  L 


CHAP.  I. 


CONTEMPORARY  POTENTATES. 


311 


WIITIEX 

"*" 

THIOOTHIO    KiaOS 

TiM.ii.  xixai 

457.'  LM  I.              474 

i.D.                              i.D. 

i.D.                           i.D. 

ij>.                             A.D. 

i.D.                                   A.D. 

426.  Genaerie.         476 

461.  Sererut.        484 
464.  Vacant.          466 
467.  AaUiemius.    471 

466.E«ri».            4S4 

474.L*o  1  1.            481 
Baailisoui. 

472.  Olybriui. 
Glyceriuf. 
Nepoa. 
Au£U£tultu.  476 

476.  Hnnnerie.       484 

IIXOS    OF    ITiLI. 

481.  Clo-ri..           610 

K  nr'!om 



476.  Odoaeer  the 
HeruUan.       493 

484.  Alaiio  IL       507 

484.  Gondebald.     495 

of  CloTij. 

491.AnartaihuI.618 

493.  Tbeodorio  the 
Oitrogoth.     628 

KIXOI 
OT  BCKQUITDT. 

496.  Thrasimoud.   622 

461.  Gunderie.      472 

507.  Geaatrle.       Ell 

(Vltalianu.)  615 
618.  Justin  L         627 

472.  Gundebald  and 
hi«  brothen,  60* 

511.  A  malaria.       631 

62S.  HBderio.         630 

627.  Justinian.      666 

526.  Athalaric,      634 
534.  Theodatus.     636 

624.  Gondemar.    632 
Conquered  by 
We§  tern  FraniJ. 

631.  Thendn.       648 

630.  GOimer.          634 

634.  Conquered  by 

Jujtinian. 

636.  Vitise*.         640 

548.  Theodesedld.  549 
549.  Agila.              668 

640.  Theodebald. 
641.  Ararlo. 
loula.            663 

558.  Tel*. 

658.  AthanagBd.   667 

565.  Justin  H.      578 

667.  Uuba.            672 

678.  Tiberiui.         582 
58±  Maurioe.         602 

572.  Leorigfld.       680 
586.Reeare4,        000 

002.  Fhoeag.         610 

(&•  For  Eastern  Empire,  to.  —  See  bottom  of  nut  page. 


812  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 


BOOK  III. 
CHAPTER  I. 

MONOPHYSITISM. 

LEO  THE  GREAT  had  not  lived  to  witness  the  last 
feeble  agonies  of  the  Western  Empire  ;  he  escaped  the 
ignominious  feeling  which  must  have  depressed  the 
spirit  of  a  Roman  at  the  assumption  of  the  strange 
title,  the  King  of  Italy,  by  a  Barbarian :  he  was  not 
called  upon  to  render  his  allegiance,  or  to  acknowledge 
the  title  of  Odoacer. 

The  immediate  successor  of  Leo  was  Hilarius,  by 
NOT.  19, 46i.  birth  a  Sardinian.  As  deacon,  Hilarius  had 
been  the  representative  of  Leo  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ephesus.  His  firmness  during  those  stormy 
debates  displays  a  character  unlikely  to  depart  from 
the  lofty  pretensions  of  his  predecessor.  He  reasserted 
in  the  East  the  unbending  orthodoxy  of  Leo ;  in  the 
West,  he  maintained,  to  the  utmost  extent,  the  author- 
ity which  had  been  claimed  over  the  churches  of  Gaul 


664.  Vino,  GertKur.     Mi. 

*?"***?* 

«isr«  0» 

IS.  femu^SM 

5«.  Albota.           IR 
572.  Clrophll.        674 
674.  Doie.  rult  to  -W4 
6S4.  Authuv,        iff) 
ktar. 
WO.  Agflntt          61* 

CHAP.  I.     EXTINCTION    OF    ROMAN    SOVEREIGNTY.          313 

and  Spain.  Rusticus,  Bishop  of  Narbonne,  on  his 
death-bed,  nominated  Hermes  as  successor  to  his  see. 
This  precedent  of  a  bishop  making  his  see,  as  it  were, 
a  subject  of  testamentary  bequest,  seemed  dangerous, 
though  in  this  case  the  lawful  assent  had  been  obtained 
from  the  clergy  and  the  people.  Hilarius,  at  NOV.  3, 462. 
the  head  of  a  synod  in  Rome,  condemned  the  prac- 
tice, but  for  the  sentence  of  degradation  substituted 
the  lesser  punishment,  the  deprivation  of  the  right 
to  confer  ordination.  In  another  dispute  concerning 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Metropolitans  of  Aries  and 
Vienne  over  the  Bishop  of  Die,  the  successor  Feb.  24, 464. 
of  St.  Peter  at  least  confirms,  if  he  does  not  ground 
his  whole  ecclesiastical  authority  on  the  decrees  of 
Christian  Emperors.  The  Imperial  sanction  was  want- 
ing to  ratify  the  edicts  of  the  Apostolic  See.1  The 
bishops  of  the  province  of  Tarragona  addressed  Pope 
Hilarius  in  humbler  language,  and  were  treated,  there- 
fore, in  a  loftier  tone  of  dictation. 

The  only  act  of  Hilarius  which  mingles  him  up  with 
the  temporal  affairs  of  the  age,  is  his  solemn  rebuke  of 
the  Emperor  Anthemius,  the  sovereign  who  had  been 
sent  from  Constantinople  to  rule  the  West,  for  presum- 
ing to  introduce  those  maxims  of  toleration,  to  which 
his  father-in-law,  Marcian,  had  compelled  unruly  Con- 
stantinople ;  and  even  to  look  with  favor  on  the  few 

i  "  Fratri  enim  nostro  Leontio  nihil  constituti  a  sanctte  memorise  deces- 
sore  meo  potuit  abrogari,  nihil  voluit,  quod  honori  ejus  debetur,  auferri ; 
quia  Christianorum  quoque  principum  lege  decretum  est,  ut  quidquid  eccle- 
siis  earumque  rectoribus,  pro  quiete  omnium  domini  sacerdotum,  atque 
ipsius  observautia  discipline,  in  auferendis  confusionibus  apostolicae  sedis 
antistes  suo  pronunciasset  examine,  veneranter  accipi,  tenaciterque  ser- 
trari,  cum  suis  plebibus  caritas  vestra  cognosceret:  nee  unquam  possent 
sonvelli,  quae  et  sacerdotal!  ecclesiastica  prseceptione  fulcirentur  et  regia." 
—  Hilarii  Pap»  Epist.  xi.  Labbe,  p.  1045. 


314  LATIN    CHBISTIAXTTY.  BOOK  III 

surviving  partisans  of  the  ancient  philosophy,  if  not  of 
the  ancient  religion.  Under  the  reign  of  Anthemius, 
the  old  heathen  festival,  the  Lupercalia,  was  still  cele- 
brated in  Rome.  The  venerable  rite  which  still  com- 
memorated at  once  the  genial  influences  of  the  open- 
Sept.467.  ing  year,  and  the  birth  of  Rome  from  the 
she-wolf  which  nursed  her  twin  founders,  was  but 
slightly  disguised  to  the  worshipping  Christians.1 

It  was  Simplicius,  the  successor  of  Hilarius,  born  at 
iw>.25,468.  Tibur,  who  beheld  the  sceptre  wrested  from 
8Smp  the  helpless  hand  of  Augustulus,  and  heard 

the  demand  of  the  allegiance  of  Italy  from  Odoacer, 
a  barbarian  of  uncertain  race.  The  Papal  Epistles 
dwell  only  on  the  polemic  controversies  of  the  day,  on 
ciow  of  the  questions  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  or  cere- 

Western  .,,.,.,.  J         , 

Empire.  monial  disclipline ;  they  rarely  notice,  even 
incidentally,  the  great  changes  in  the  civil  society 
around  them.  We  endeavor  in  vain  to  find  any  ex- 
pression or  intimation  of  the  feelings  excited  in  a  Ro 
man  of  the  high  station  and  influence  of  the  Pope,  at 
the  total  extinction  of  that  sovereignty  which  had  gov- 
erned the  world  for  centuries,  and  from  which  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  acknowledged  himself  to  hold  to  some 
extent  his  authority ;  by  whose  edicts  Christianity  had 
become  the  established  religion  of  the  world,  to  which 
the  orthodox  faith  looked  for  its  support  by  the  legal 
proscription  of  heretics ;  which  had  been  at  least  the 
civil  lawgiver  of  the  Church,  and  by  whose  grants  she 
held  her  vast  increasing  estates.  How  far  was  the 
conscious  possession  of  a  power,  which  might  hereafter 
sway  opinions  as  widely  as  the  republic  or  the  empire 
had  enforced  outward  submission  and  by  force  of  arms 

*  Compare  Gibbon,  ch.  xxxvi. 


CHAP.  I.  CHURCH  IN  THE  EAST.  315 

had  quelled  every  thought  of  resistance,  accepted  as  a 
consolation  for  the  departed  name  of  sovereignty? 
How  far  did  Roman  pride  take  refuge  under  the  pre- 
tensions of  her  Bishop  to  be  the  head  of  Christendom, 
from  the  degradation  of  a  foreign  and  barbarian  yoke  ? 
Christendom,  from  all  her  monuments  and  records, 
mio-ht  seem  to  have  formed  a  world  of  her  own.  Of 

o 

the  fall  of  Augutulus,  of  the  rise  of  Odoacer,  we  hear 
not  a  word.  Even  in  the  midst  of  this  extraordinary 
revolution  the  active  energy  of  the  Popes  seems  con- 
centred on  the  East.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  is  busy 
in  Constantinople,  opposing  the  intrigues  of  Timotheus 
Ailurus,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  jealously  watch- 
ing the  ambition  of  Acacius,  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople, a  more  formidable  enemy  than  Odoacer,  as 
threatening  the  religious  supremacy  of  Rome.1  He" 
takes  deep  interest  in  the  changes  on  the  throne  of  the 
East,  congratulates  the  Emperor  Zeno  on  his  restora- 
tion, but  it  is  because  Zeno  is  an  enemy  to  the  Euty- 
chian  heretics,  because  he  rises  on  the  ruins  of  Basilis- 
cus,  the  patron  of  the  Monophysite  faction. 

For  while  the  West,  partly  from  her  want  of  interest 
in  these  questions,  partly  from  the  unsettled  state  of 
public  affairs,  from  the  breaking  up  of  Attila's  king- 
dom, the  Vandal  invasion  of  Italy,  the  Visigothic  con- 
quests in  Gaul  and  Spain,  and  the  final  extinction  of 
the  empire,  reposed,  as  to  its  religious  belief,  under  the 
paternal  sway  of  Pope  Leo  and  his  succes-  Chnreh  jn 
sors,  the  distracted  East,  in  all  its  great  capi-  the  East' 
tals,  was  still  agitated  with  strife,  that  strife  perpetually 
breaking  out  into  violence  and  bloodshed.     The  Coun- 

O 

cil  of  Chalcedon  had  commanded,  had  defined  the  or- 

*  Simplicii  Epist.  p.  1078. 


316  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

thodox  creed  in  vain.  Everywhere  its  decrees  were 
received  or  rejected,  according  to  the  dominant  party 
in  each  city,  and  the  opinions  of  the  reigning  Emperor. 
On  all  the  metropolitan  thrones  there  were  rival 
bishops,  anathematizing  each  other,  and  each  supported 
either  by  the  civil  power,  by  a  part  of  the  populace,  or 
by  the  monks,  more  fierce  and  unruly  than  the  unruly 
populace.  For  everywhere  monks  were  at  the  head  of 
the  religious  revolution  which  threw  off  the  yoke  of 
jern»iem.  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.1  In  Jerusalem 
Theodosius,  a  monk,  expelled  the  rightful  prelate,  Ju- 
venalis  ;  was  consecrated  by  his  party,  and  maintained 
himself  by  acts  of  violence,  pillage,  and  murder,  more 
like  one  of  the  lawless  bandits  of  the  country  than  a 
Christian  bishop.  The  very  scenes  of  the  Saviour's 
•Alexandria,  mercies  ran  with  blood  shed  in  his  name  by 
his  ferocious  self-called  disciples.  In  Alexandria  the 
name  of  Dioscorus  (who  remained  quiet  till  his  death, 
at  Gangra,  his  place  of  exile)  was  still  dear  to  most  of 
the  monks,  and  to  many  of  the  people,  who  asserted 
the  champion  of  orthodox  belief  and  Alexandrian  dig- 
nity to  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  Nutation  Council 
of  Chalcedon.  A  prelate  named  Proterius  had  been 
appointed,  in  the  triumph  of  that  Council,  to  the  vacant 
see.  The  bold  wit  of  the  Alexandrian  populace  had 
always  delighted  in  affixing  nicknames  upon  the  rulers 
and  kings  of  Egypt ;  in  their  strong  religious  animos- 

1  Leonia  Epist.  cix.  a  cxxiv. ;  Marciani  Epist.  ad  ealc.  Cone.  Chalced. ; 
Evagrins,  11,  5.  The  latter  writer  says  the  difference  between  the  two 
parties  was  between  the  two  prepositions  cv  and  ef .  Leo  makes  a  renterka- 
ble  admission.  His  words  might  have  been  misunderstood  by  those  who 
"non  valentes  in  Graecum  apte  et  proprie  Latina  transferre,  cum  in  rebus 
subtilibus  et  difficilibus  explicandis,  vix  sibi  etiam  in  sua  lingua  disputator 
quisque  sufficiat." 


CHAP.  I.  EXCESSES    OF    THE    MONKS.  317 

ity,  they  scrupled  not  to  profane  their  holy  bishops  with 
equally  irreverent  appellations.  Timotheus,  a  monk, 
called  Ailurus  the  Weasel,  perhaps  because  he  was 
said  to  have  slunk  by  night  to  the  secret  meetings  of 
the  rabble,  or  because  he  stole  into  the  bish-  A.D.  457. 
opric  of  another,  was  consecrated  by  the  anti-Chalce- 
donian  faction,  as  a  rival  metropolitan.  We  are  im- 
patient of  these  dreary  and  intricate  feuds.  That  of 
Alexandria  ended,  it  must  not  be  said,  for  it  might 
seem  interminable,  but  came  to  a  crisis,  in  the  horrible 
assassination  of  Proterius.  So  little  had  centuries  of 
Christianity  tamed  the  savage  populace  of  this  great 
city,  that  the  Bishop  was  not  only  murdered  in  the 
baptistery,  but  his  body  treated  with  shameless  indig- 
nity, and  other  enormities  perpetrated  which  might 
have  appalled  a  cannibal.1  Timotheus,  however,  is 
acquitted  as  to  the  guilt  of  participation  in  these  mon- 
strous crimes.  But  the  Weasel  did  not  assume  the 
throne  of  Alexandria  without  a  rival.  Another  Timo 
theus,  called  Solofaciolus,  was  set  up  (Timo-  A.B.  460. 
theus  the  Weasel  having  been  banished  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  Emperor  Leo),  after  no  long  interval,  by 
the  Chalcedonian  party.2 

At  Antioch,  some  years  later,  a  third  monk,  Peter, 
called  from  his  humble  birth  and  occupation  the  Fuller,3 
with  the  apparent  countenance  of  Zeno,  the  Antioch. 
Emperor  Leo's  son-in-law,  whom  he  had  accompanied 

1  Kal  ov6e  TUV  £vrdf  airoygveffdai  /card  ravt;  i9^pof  Qedopevot  ticeivov,  ov 
IXMV  [teaiTqv  &eov  /cat  avdpunuv  fvay^of  evofua&rjoav.  —  Evagrius,  11,  9, 
quoting  the  letter  of  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  to  the  Emperor  Leo. 

2  Timotheus  was  allowed  to  go  to  Constantinople  to  plead   his  cause; 
thence  he  was  dismissed  into  banishment.  —  S.  Leon.  Epist.  ad  Gennadium 
et  ad  Leonem  Imper. 

8  The  history  of  Peter  the  Fuller  is  related  differently ;  the  time  of  hia 
invasion  of  the  church  of  Antioch  is  not  quite  certain. 


318  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

during  his  wars  in  the  East,  began  to  intrigue  with  the 
discontented  party  in  that  city.  He  led  a  procession, 
chiefly  of  monastics,  through  the  streets,  which  added 
to  the  "  Thrice  Holy  "  in  the  hymn,  "  who  wast  cru- 
cified for  us."  In  a  short  time  Peter  succeeded  in 
expelling  the  Bishop  Martyrius,  who  voluntarily  abdi- 
cated his  see. 

Barsumas,  the  notorious  leader  of  the  monks  in  Con- 
stantinople, who  had  been  driven  from  that  city  by  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  was  not  inactive  during  his 
exile.  Throughout  Syria  he  spread  the  charge  of  Nes- 
torianism  against  the  Council,  and  exasperated  men's 
minds  against  the  prelates  of  that  party.  On  one  re- 
ligious subject  alone  the  conflicting  East  maintained  its 
perfect  unity,  in  the  reverence,  it  may  be  said  the  wor- 
ship, of  the  Hermit  on  the  Pillar.  Simeon  Stylites 
had  been  observed  by  his  faithful  disciple  to  have  re- 
mained motionless  for  three  days  in  the  same  attitude 
of  prayer.  Not  once  had  he  stretched  out  his  arms  in 
the  form  of  the  cross  ;  not  once  had  he  bowed  his  fore- 
head till  it  touched  his  feet  (a  holy  exploit,  which  his 
wondering  admirers  had  seen  him  perform  t  \vel  \  e  hun- 
dred and  forty-four  times,  and  then  lost  their  reckon- 
ing). The  watchful  disciple  climbed  the  pillar  ;  a  rich 
odor  saluted  his  nostrils ;  the  saint  was  dead.  The 
news  reached  Antioch.  Ardaburius,  general  of  the 
forces  in  the  East,  hastened  to  send  a  guard  of  honor, 
lest  the  neighboring  cities  should  seize —  perhaps  meet 
in  desperate  warfare  for  —  the  treasure  of  his  body. 
Antioch,  now  one  in  heart  and  soul,  sent  out  her  Patri- 
arch, with  three  other  bishops,  to  lead  the  funeral  pro- 
cession. The  body  was  borne  on  mules  for  three 
hundred  stadia ;  a  deaf  and  dumb  man  touched  the 


CHAP.  I.  SIMEON    STYLITES.  319 

bier,  he  burst  out  into  a  cry  of  gratulation.  The 
whole  city,  with  torches  and  hymns,  followed  the  body. 
The  Emperor  Leo  implored  Antioch  to  yield  to  him  the 
inestimable  deposit.  The  Emperor  implored  in  vain. 
Antioch,  so  long  as  she  possessed  the  remains  of  Simeon, 
might  defy  all  her  enemies.  In  the  same  year,  when 
Antioch  thus  honored  the  funeral  rites  of  him  whom 
she  esteemed  the  greatest  of  mankind,  Rome  was  la- 
menting in  deep  and  manly  sorrow  her  Pontiff,  Leo. 
Contrast  Simeon  Stylites  with  one  Emperor  crouching 
at  the  foot  of  his  pillar,  and  receiving  his  dull,  inco- 
herent words  as  an  oracle,  then  with  another,  a  man 
of  higher  character,  supplicating  for  the  possession  of 
his  remains,  and  Pope  Leo  on  his  throne  in  Rome,  and 
in  the  camp  of  ^.ttila.  Such  were  then  Greek  and 
Latin  Christianity.  Nor  was  the  lineage  of  the  Holy 
Simeon  broken  or  contested.  The  sees  of  Constantino- 
ple, Antioch,  Alexandria,  the  throne  of  the  East,  might 
be  the  cause  of  long  and  bloody  conflict.  The  hermit 
Daniel  mounted  his  pillar  at  Anaplus,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Euxine ;  in  that  cold  and  stormy  climate,  his 
body,  instead  of  being  burned  up  with  heat,  was  rigid 
with  frost.  But  he  became  at  once  the  legitimate, 
acknowledged  successor  of  Simeon,  the  Prophet,  the 
oracle  of  Constantinople.  Once  he  condescended  to 
appear  in  the  streets  of  Constantinople;  his  presence 
decided  the  fate  of  the  Empire.1 

The  religious  affairs  in  the  East  were  indissolubly 

1  On  Simeon.  Antonii  vit.  S.  S.  Theodore!  Lect.,  Evagr.  i.  13;  on  Daniel 
vit.  Dan.  Theodoret.  This  kind  of  asceticism  was  the  admiration  of  the 
East  to  a  later  period.  Eustathius  of  Thessalonica  addressed  a  Stylites  in 
the  xiith  century,  admonishing  the  Saint  against  pride,  yet  at  the  same 
time  asserting  this  to  be  the  utmost  height  of  religion.  Eustath.  Opuscula, 
Edit.  Tafel,  p.  182. 


320  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

blended  with  the  political  revolutions,  to  which  the 


om    religious  factions    added    their   weight,   and 

inconstant!-  .  .. 

nopie.   From  unquestionably  did  not  mitigate  the  animos- 

A.B.  467  to        .      ^      rm  i      • 

*V4.  ity.     Inese   revolutions  were   frequent   and 

Death  of  violent.  Leo  the  Thracian,  the  successor  of 
Martian.  Marcian,  throughout  his  long  reign,  adhered 
firmly  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Towards  the 
close  of  his  reign  the  treacherous  murder  of  Aspar 
the  Patrician,  and  his  son  Ardaburius,  to  whom  Leo 
had  owed  his  throne;  the  violation  of  the  Imperial 
word,  solemnly  given  in  order  to  lure  Aspar  from 
the  sanctuary  to  which  he  had  fled  (the  inviolability 
of  the  right  of  sanctuary  Leo  had  just  established  by 
a  statute)  ;  the  same  contempt  of  the  laws  of  hos- 
pitality (the  murder  took  place  at  a  banquet  in  the 
Imperial  palace,  to  which  he  had  invited  Aspar  and 
his  son),  all  this  execrable  perfidy  was  vindicated  to 
a  large  part  of  his  subjects,  because  Aspar  was  an 
Arian.1  The  Eastern  world  was  in  danger  of  falling 
under  the  sway  of  the  Caesar  Ardaburius,  who  was 
either  an  open  Arian,  or  but  a  recent  and  suspicious 
convert.  This  was  in  itself  enough  to  convict  him 
and  his  partisans  of  treasonable  designs,  and  to  justify- 
any  measures  which  might  avert  the  danger  from  the 
Emperor  Leo.  Empire.  During  the  whole  reign  of  Leo, 
Eutychianism  had  been  repressed  by  the  known  or- 
thodoxy of  the  Emperor.2  Timotheus  the  Weasel 
had  been  permitted,  as  has  been  said,  through  the 
weak  and  suspicious  favor  of  Anatolius,  the  Bishop 

i  Niceph.  xv.  27. 

*  A  law  of  Leo  betrays  the  fears  of  the  government  of  these  monkish 
factions  :  "  Qui  in  monasteriis  agunt,  ne  potestatem  habeant  a  monasteries 
exeundi."  The  force  of  law  was  necessary  to  compel  these  disciples  of 
Paul  and  Antony  to  be  what  they  had  taken  vows  to  be. 


CHAP.  I.  ZENO  EXPELLED  BY  BASILISCUS.  321 

of  Constantinople,  to  visit  the  court,  but  lie  had  been 
repelled  and  sent  into  exile  by  the  severe  Emperor. 
But  with  the  exception  of  the  first  disturbances  ex- 
cited at  Antioch  by  Peter  the  Fuller,  the  reign  of 
Leo  the  Thracian  was  one  of  comparative  religious 
peace.  Eutychianism  hid  its  head  in  the  sullen 
silence  of  the  monasteries.  With  the  contested  Em- 
pire on  the  death  of  Leo,  the  religious  contests  broke 
out  in  new  fury.  Zeno,  who  had  married  Leo's 
daughter,  Ariadne,  was  driven  from  the  zeno  espeiied 

i  i        T->       -T  111  />  TT      •  by  Basiliscus. 

throne  by  Basihscus,  the  brother  or  Venna,  A.D.  476. 
the  widow  of  Leo.  With  Basiliscus,  the  anti-Chalce- 
donian  party  rose  to  power.  An  Imperial  encyclic  letter 
branded  with  an  anathema  the  whole  proceedings  at 
Chalcedon,  and  the  letter  of  Pope  Leo,  as  tainted  with 
Nestorianism.  Everywhere  the  Eutychian  bishops 
seized  upon  the  sees,  and  expelled  the  rightful  prel- 
ates. Peter  the  Fuller,  who  had  for  a  time  been 
excluded,  reascended  the  throne  of  Antioch.  Paul 
resumed  that  of  Ephesus.  Anastasius  of  Jerusalem 
rendered  his  allegiance.  Timotheus  the  Weasel  came 
from  his  exile  to  Constantinople,  and  ruled  the  Em- 
peror Basiliscus  with  unrivalled  sway.1  Acacius,  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was  a  man  of  great  ability. 
He  beheld  the  unwelcome  presence,  the  increasing 
influence  of  the  rival  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  with 
jealous  suspicion,  and  refused  to  admit  him  to  the 
communion  of  the  Church.  Fierce  struggles  for 
power  distracted  Constantinople.2  On  one  side  were 

1  See  the  triumphant  reception  of  Timotheus  in  Constantinople,  Evagr. 
iii.  4. 

2  The  language  of  the  Pope  Simplicius  shows  the  manner  in  which  the 
hostile  parties  wrote  of  each  other:    "Comperi  Timotheum  parricidam,  qui 
^Egyptiacae  pridem  vastator  Ecclesiaj,  in  morem  Cain  .  .  .  ejectus  a  facie 

21 


322  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

the  Eutychian  monks  ;  on  the  other,  the  Bishop  Aoa- 
cius  and  a  large  part  of  the  populace  and  of  the 
monks  of  Constantinople,  for  fierce  bands  of  monks 
now  appeared  on  either  side.  But  his  most  powerful 
supporter  was  the  Hermit  Daniel,  who  descended  from 
the  pillar,  where  he  had  received  the  suppliant  visits 
of  the  former  Emperor,  to  take  part  in  these  tumults, 
that  pillar  which  more  sober  Christians  might  almost 
have  mounted  in  order  to  rise  above  the  turbid  at- 
mosphere of  strife.  With  this  potent  ally  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  (probably  indeed  supported  by  the 
strong  faction  of  the  expelled  Zeno)  waged  an  equal 
war  against  the  Emperor.  Ere  long  the  strange  spec- 
tacle was  presented  of  a  Roman  Emperor  flying  before 
a  naked  hermit,  who  had  lost  the  use  of  his  legs  by 
standing  for  sixteen  years  on  his  column.  Basiliscus 
too  late  revoked  his  encyclic  letter.  He  fell,  and  Zeno 
zeno  empe-  resumed  the  power.  The  tide  turned  against 
tor,  A.D.  477.  tne  Monophysite  or  anti-Chalcedonian  party. 
But  the  rest,  though  some  bishops  hastened  to  make 
their  peace  with  the  Emperor  and  with  Acacius,  con- 
tended obstinately  against  the  stream.  Stephanus,  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  murdered  in  the  church  by 
the  partisans  of  Peter  the  Fuller.  Timotheus  the 
Weasel,  spared  from  all  extreme  chastisement  on  ac- 
count of  his  age,  died ;  but  in  his  place  arose  another 
monk,  Peter,  called  Mongus,  or  the  Stammerer,  and 
laid  claim  to  the  see  of  Alexandria.  Timotheus  Solo- 
faciolus,  however,  under  the  Imperial  authority,  re- 
Dei,  hoc  est  Ecclesiae  dignitate  seclusus."  ...  He  then  dereribes  his  re- 
sumption of  the  Alexandrian  See:  "Quo  procul  dubio  Cain  ipso  longe 
detestabilior  approbatur;  ille  siquidem  a  perpetrato  semel  facinore  damna- 
tus  abstinuit,  hie  profecit  ad  crimina  majora  post  pocnam." — Simplic. 
Epist.  Labbe,  1070. 


CHAP.  I.  HEXOTICON  OF  ZEXO.  323 

sumed  the  Patriarchate,  and  endeavored  to  reconcile 
the  heretics  by  Christian  gentleness.1  The  Emperor 
Zeno  beheld  with  commiseration  and  dismay  his  dis- 
tracted empire ;  he  determined,  if  possible,  to  assuage 
the  animosities,  and  to  reconcile  the  hostile  factions. 
After  a  vain  attempt  to  obtain  the  opinions  of  the 
chief  ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  without  assembling  a 
new  Council,  a  measure  which  experience  had  shown 
to  exasperate  rather  than  appease  the  strife,  Zeno 
issued  his  famous  Henoticon,  or  Edict  of  A-D-  482. 

UT<L  •  i-    .  Henoticon  of 

nion.       Inis    edict  was   composed,   it  was  zem>- 

believed,  if  not  by  Acacius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
under  his  direction  and  with  his  sanction.  It  aimed 
not  at  the  reconcilement  of  the  conflicting  opinions, 
but  hoped,  by  avoiding  all  expressions  offensive  to 
either  party,  to  allow  them  to  meet  together  in  Chris- 
tian amity ;  as  if  such  terms  had  not  become  to  both 
parties  an  essential  part,  perhaps  the  whole,  of  their 
Christianity. 

The  immediate  effects  of  the  Henoticon  in  the  East 
might  seem  to  encourage  the  fond  hope  of  success. 
The  feud  between  the  rival  Churches  of  Constan- 
tinople and  Alexandria  was  for  a  time  appeased. 
Acacius  and  Peter  the  Stammerer  recognized  their 
mutual  claims  to  Christian  communion.  Calendion, 
the  Chalcedonian  Bishop  of  Antioch,  had  been  ban- 
ished to  the  African  Oasis.  Peter  the  Fuller  had 
resumed  the  throne.  Peter  acceded  to  the  Henoticon  ; 
and  these  three  Patriarchal  churches  commended  the 
Imperial  scheme  of  union  to  the  Eastern  world.2 

1  Libcratus  says  that  the  heretics  used  to  cry  out  as  he  passed,  "  Though 
we  do  not  communicate  with  you,  yet  we  love  you."  — Breviar.    Baronius 
is  indignant  at  this  "  nimia  indulgentia  "  of  the  bishop  (sub  ann.  478). 

2  Evagrius,  iii.  26. 


324  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

It  was  but  a  transient  lull  of  peace.  The  Henoti- 
Aiexandria.  con,  without  reconciling  the  two  original 
conflicting  parties,  only  gave  rise  to  a  third  :  in 
Three  parties.  Alexandria  the  two  factions  severed  into 
three.  One  half  of  the  Eutychian  or  anti-Chalce- 
donian  party  adhered  to  Peter  the  Stammerer;  the 
other  indignantly  repudiated  what  they  called  the  base 
concession  of  Peter;  they  were  named  the  Acepliali, 
without  a  head,  as  setting  up  no  third  prelate.  The 
strong  Chalcedonian  party  had  nominated  as  successor 
John  Talajas.  to  the  mild  Timotheus  Solofaciolus,  a  man  of 
a  different  character.  John  Talajas,  while  at  Con- 
stantinople, had  been  compelled  by  the  provident,  but 
vain  precaution,  no  doubt,  of  Acacius,  to  pledge  him- 
self not  to  aspire  to  the  see  of  Alexandria.1  The  ob- 
ject of  Acacius  was  to  unite  the  Alexandrian  Church 
under  Peter  the  Stammerer,  beneath  the  broad  com- 
prehension of  the  Henoticon.  No  sooner  was  Timo- 
theus dead,  and  John  Talajas  safe  at  Alexandria, 
than  he  accepted  the  succession  of  Timotheus.  On 
the  union  between  Acacius  and  Peter  the  Stammerer, 
John  Talajas  fled  to  Rome;  he  was  welcomed  as  a 
second  Athanasius. 

For  now  a  question  had  arisen,  which  involved  the 
Question  of  Bishops  of  Rome,  not  merely  as  dignified 
Dupremacy.  arbiters  on  a  high  and  profound  metaphysical 
question  of  the  faith,  but,  vital  to  their  power  and  dig- 
nity, plunged  them  into  the  strife  as  ardent  and  implac- 
able combatants.  The  Roman  Pontiffs  had  already,  at 
least  from  the  time  of  Innocent  I.,  asserted  their  in- 
alienable supremacy  on  purely  religious  grounds,  as 
successors  of  St.  Peter.  If,  as  in  the  recent  act  of 

1  Evagrius,  on  the  authority  of  Zacharias. 


CHAP.  I.  QUESTION  OF  ROMAN  SUPREMACY.  325 

Hilarius,  they  had  appealed  to  the  laws  of  the  empire, 
as  confirmatory  of  that  supremacy,  it  was  to  enforce 
more  ready  and  implicit  obedience.  But  with  the 
world  at  large  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  Rome 
rested  solely  on  her  civil  supremacy.  The  Pope  was 
head  of  Christendom  as  Bishop  of  the  first  city  in  the 
world.  Already  Constantinople  had  put  forth  claims 
to  coequal  ecclesiastical,  as  being  now  of  coequal 
temporal  dignity.  This  claim  had  been  ratified  by 
the  great  (Ecumenic  Council  of  Chalcedon,  —  that 
Council  which  had  established  the  inflexible  line  of 
orthodoxy  between  the  divergent  heresies  of  Nestorius 
and  Eutyches.  This  was  but  the  supplementary  act, 
it  was  asserted,  of  a  small  and  factious  minority,  who 
had  lingered  behind  the  rest ;  but,  it  appeared  upon 
the  records,  it  boasted  the  authority  of  the  unanimous 
Council.1  The  ambition  of  Acacius,  now,  under  Zeno, 
sole  and  undisputed  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was 
equal  to  his  ability.  He  seemed  watching  the  gradual 
fall  of  the  Western  Empire,  the  degradation  of  Rome 
from  the  capital  of  the  world,  which  would  leave  Con- 
stantinople no  longer  the  new,  the  second,  rather  the 
only  Rome  upon  earth.  The  West,  in  the  person  of 
Anthemius,  had  received  an  emperor  appointed  by 
Constantinople;  the  Western  Empire  at  one  moment 
seemed  disposed  to  become  a  province  of  the  East. 
Acacius  had  already  obtained  from  the  Emperor  (we 
must  reascend  in  the  course  of  our  history  to  connect 
the  East  with  the  West),  Leo  the  Thracian,  who  had 
ruled  between  Marcian  and  Zeno,  a  decree  confirming 
to  the  utmost  all  the  privileges  of  a  Patriarchate  claimed 
by  Constantinople.  In  that  edict  Constantinople  as- 

1  Compare  Baronius  sub  aim.  472. 


826  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  d. 

sumed  the  significant  and  threatening  title  of  "  Mother 
of  all  Christians  and  of  the  orthodox  Religion."  The 
Pope  Simplicius  had  protested  against  this  usurpation, 
but  his  protest  is  lost.  The  aspiring  views  of  Acacius 
were  interrupted  for  a  short  time  by  his  fall  under  the 
Emperor  Basiliscus;  but  his  triumph  (an  unwonted 
triumph  of  a  Bishop  of  Constantinople  over  an  Em- 
peror), his  unbounded  favor  with  Zeno,  might  warrant 
the  loftiest  expectations.  As  the  acknowledged  and 
victorius  champion  of  orthodoxy,  Acacius  could  now 
take  the  high  position  of  a  mediator.  In  the  Henot- 
icon  Zeno  the  Emperor  spoke  his  language,  and  in 
that  edict  appeared  a  manifest  desire  to  assuage  the 
discords  of  the  East,  and  to  combine  the  Churches 
in  one  harmonious  confederacy.  On  the  murder  of 
Stephanus  of  Antioch,  Acacius  had  consecrated  his 
successor ;  a  step  against  which  the  Pope  Simplicius, 
A.D.  479.  Re- who  was  watching  all  his  actions,  sent  a 

monstrance  -rt    c  i  i  T 

of  simpiiciua.  strong  remonstrance.  Before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Henoticon,  the  Western  Empire  had  de- 
parted from  Rome;  but  though  her  political  suprem- 
acy, even  her  political  independence  was  lost,  she 
would  not  tamely  abandon  her  spiritual  dignity.  For 
Rome,  in  the  utmost  assertion  of  her  power  against 
the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  might  depend  on  the 
support  of  above  half  the  East;  of  all  who  were 
discontented  with  the  Henoticon ;  and  who,  in  the 
absorbing  ardor  of  the  strife,  would  not  care  on  what 
terms  they  obtained  the  alliance  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  so  that  alliance  enabled  them  to  triumph  over 
their  adversaries.  The  dissatisfaction  with  the  Henot- 
^con  comprehended  totally  opposite  factions, 
— ^  fouowers  of  Nestorius  and  of  Euty- 


CHAP.  I.  FACTIONS  IN  THE  EAST.  327 

ches,  who  were  impartially  condemned  on  all  sides  ;  — 
and  the  ecclesiastics,  who  considered  it  an  act  of  pre- 
sumption in  the  Emperor  to  assume  the  right  of  legis- 
lating in  spiritual  matters,  a  right  complacently  admitted 
when  ratifying  or  compulsorily  enforcing  ecclesiastical 
decrees,  and  usually  adopted  without  scruple  on  other 
occasions  by  the  party  with  which  the  Court  happened 
to  side.  But  the  strength  of  the  malcontents  was  the 
high  Chalcedonian  or  orthodox  party,  who  condemned 
the  Henoticon  as  tainted  with  Eutychianism,  and  de- 
nounced Acacius  as  holding  communion  with  Eutychian 
Prelates,  and  therefore  himself  justly  suspected  of 
leaning  to  that  heresy.  In  Constantinople  the  more 
formidable  of  the  monks  were  of  this  party ;  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  addressed  more  than  once  the  clergy 
and  the  archimandrites  of  that  city,  as  though  assured 
of  their  sympathy  against  the  Bishop  and  the  Empe- 
ror. John  Talajas,  the  exiled  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
filled  Rome  with  his  clamors.  The  Pope  Simplicius 
addressed  a  remonstrance  to  Acacius,  to  which  Aca- 
cius, who  to  former  letters  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had 
condescended  no  answer,  coldly  replied  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  such  a  Bishop  of  Alexandria ;  that  he  was 
in  communion  with  the  rightful  Bishop,  Peter  Mongus, 
who,  like  a  loyal  subject,  had  subscribed  the  Emperor's 
Edict  of  Union.1 

At  this  juncture   died    Pope    Simplicius.     On  the 
i  acancy  of  the  see  occurred  a  singular  scene.  March, 
The  clergy  were  assembled  in   St.   Peter's,  ni^th  of 
In    the   midst   of  them    stood    up    Basilius, Sl1 
the  Patrician  and  Prefect  of  Rome,  acting  as  Vice- 
gerent  of    Odoacer,   the    barbarian    King.      He    ap- 

1  Liberat.  Breviar. 


328  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI 

pearcd  by  the  command  of  his  master,  and  by  the 
admonition  of  the  deceased  Simplicius,  to  take  care 
that  the  peace  of  the  city  was  not  disturbed  by  any 
sedition  or  tumult  during  the  election.  That  election 
could  not  take  place  without  the  sanction  of  his  Sover- 
eign. He  proceeded,  as  the  Protector  of  the  Church 
from  loss  and  injury  by  Churchmen,  to  proclaim  the 
Decree  of  following  edict :  "  That  no  one,  under  the 
penalty  of  anathema,  should  alienate  any 
farm,  buildings,  or  ornaments  of  the  Churches ;  that 
such  alienation  by  any  Bishop  present  or  future  was 
null  and  void."  So  important  did  this  precedent  ap- 
pear, so  dangerous  in  the  hands  of  those  schismatics 
who  would  even  in  those  days  limit  the  sacerdotal 
power,  that  nearly  twenty  years  after,  a  fortunate 
occasion  was  seized  by  the  Pope  Symmachus  to  annul 
this  decree.  In  a  synod  of  Bishops  at  Rome,  the 
edict  was  rehearsed,  interrupted  by  protests  of  the 
Bishops  at  this  presumptuous  interference  of  the  laity 
with  affairs  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.1  The  authen- 
ticity of  the  decree  was  not  called  in  question ;  it  was 
declared  invalid,  as  being  contrary  to  the  usages  of  the 
Fathers,  enacted  on  lay  authority,  and  as  not  ratified 
by  the  signature  of  any  Bishop  at  Rome.  The  same 
Council,  however,  acknowledged  its  wisdom  by  re- 
enacting  its  ordinance  against  the  alienation  of  Church 
property. 

Felix,  by  birth  a  Roman,  succeeded  to  the  vacant 
Feiu  ni.  see.  He  inherited  the  views  and  passions, 
A.D.  483.  as  well  as  the  throne  of  Simplicius  and  his 
strife  with  the  East.  His  first  act  was  an  indignant 
rejection  of  the  Henoticon,  as  an  insult  to  the  Council 

1  Synodus  Romana.    Labbe,  sub  aim.  502. 


CHAP.  I.  FELIX    HI.  329 

of  Chalcedon;  as  an  audacious  act  of  the  Emperor 
Zeno,  who  dared  to  dictate  articles  of  faith ;  as  a  seed- 
plot  of  impiety.1  He  anathematized  all  the  Bishops 
who  had  subscribed  this  edict.  At  the  head  of  a  Roman 
synod,  Felix  addressed  a  strong  admonitory  letter  to 
Acacius  of  Constantinople,  and  another,  in  a  more 
persuasive  tone,  to  the  Emperor  Zeno.  These  letters 
were  sent  into  the  East  by  two  Bishops,  Misenus  and 
Vitalis,  as  Legates  of  Pope  Felix.  To  Peter  the 
Fuller  was  directed  another  letter,  arraigning  him  as 
involved  in  every  heresy  which  had  ever  afflicted  the 
Church,  or  with  something  worse  than  the  worst.2 
Whether  he  awaited  any  reply  from  the  re-  Excommuni- 

rt  T->  •   i  i       i     p  i        i         cates  Peter 

fractory  Bishop  or  not  seems  doubtful ;   but  the  Fuller. 
he  proceeded  to  fulminate  a  sentence  of  deposition  and 
excommunication  against  Peter  in  his  own  name,  and 
to  assume  that  this  sentence  would  be  ratified  by  Aca- 
cius of  Constantinople. 

The   Legate   Bishops,    Misenus   and  Vitalis,  were 

1  Theodoras  Lector. 

2  The  introduction  by  Peter  the  Fuller  of  "  who  wast  crucified  for  us," 
after  the  angelic  hymn,  the  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  struck  the  ears  of  the  ortho- 
dox with  horror.     Felix  relates  with  all  the  earnestness  of  faith,  and  with 
all  the  authority  of  his  position,  the  miraculous  origin  of  this  hymn  in  its 
simple  form.    During  an  earthquake  at  Constantinople,  while  the  whole  peo- 
ple were  praying  in  the  open  air,  an  infant  was  visibly  rapt  to  heaven,  in  the 
sight  of  the  whole  assembly  and  of  the  Bishop  Proclus ;  and  after  staying 
there  an  hour,  descended  back  to  the  earth,  and  informed  the  people  that 
he  had  heard  the  whole  host  of  angels  singing  those  words.     It  was  not 
merely  that  the  words,  added  at  Antioch,  left  it  doubtful  which  of  the 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  was  crucified  for  us ;  the  term  was  equally  impious 
as  regarded  any  one  of  those  consubstantial,  uncreated,  invisible,  impassi- 
ble Beings.     Ka&o  roivvv  6  /yovoyev^f  vlog  k<m  TOV  Trarpof  dpoovaiof,  ical 
elf  rfif  aduuperov  rpiuSof,  d/cncrrof  /cat  dtfearof,  tfj.e/4Evf}KEi  inratiijf  not 

Td  ovv  &KTIOTOV  KCU  uddvarov  rri  KT'IGU  pj  avvTarre,  KOI  rod 
j&eias  Tubyov  pi  uparvve,  dtu  rd  teyeiv  redvavai  rbv  eva  TTJS  rpiddoc. 
-Epist.  Felic.  III.  ad  Petr.  Full.,  Labbe,  1058. 


330  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

attacked    at   Abydus,   and   their  papers   seized.      At 
Constantinople   they  were  compelled,  bribed,  or   be- 
trayed into  communion  with  Peter  the   Stammerer; 
at  least  they  were  present,  and  without  protest,  at 
the  divine  service  when  the  name  of  Peter  was  read 
in  the  diptychs  as  lawful  Bishop  of  Alexandria.     On 
their  return  they  were  branded  as  traitors  by  Felix 
at  the  head  of  a  synod  at  Rome,  and  degraded  from 
their  episcopal  office.     Felix  proceeded  (his  tardiness 
had  been  sharply  rebuked  by  the  monks  of  Constan- 
tinople, especially  the  sleepless  monks,1  whose  archi- 
uni-  mandrite  Cyril  and   his  whole  brotherhood 
were   the   implacable    enemies   of   Acacius) 
to   issue   the    sentence   of  excommunication 
against  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople.     The  sentence 
was   pronounced,  not  on   account  of  heresy,  but  of 
obstinate  communion  with  heretics  —  with    Peter  of 
juiy  28, 484.  Alexandria,   who   had   been  condemned   by 
Pope  Simplicius  for  his  violent  conduct  to  the  Papal 
Legates,  and  his  contemptuous  refusal  to  admit  the 
third  ambassador,  Felix  the  Defensor,  to  his  presence. 
Acacius  was  declared  to  be  deprived,  not  merely  of 
his  episcopal,  but  of  his  priestly  honors,  separated  from 
the  communion  of  the  faithful ;  and  this  anathema,  an 
unusual  form,  was  declared  irrepealable  by  any  power.2 
But  how  was  this  process  to  be  served  on  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople?     Acacius  was  strong  in  the  favor 
of  the  Emperor  Zeno.     It  is  remarkable  that,  while  he 

1  ' AnoifitjTOi. 

a  "  Nunquamque  anathematis  vinculis  eruendus."  —  Epist.  Felic.  ad 
Acacius.  Felix,  in  a  subsequent  letter  to  Zeno,  maintains  this  impla- 
cable doctrine  :  "  Unde  divino  judicio  nullatenus  potuit,  etiarn  cum  id 
mallemus,  absolvi."  —  Epist.  xi.  Writing  to  Fravitta,  his  successor,  he 
intimates  that  no  doubt  Acaciua  has  gone,  like  Judas,  to  hell. 


CHAP.  I.  SCHISM  OF  FORTY  TEAKS.  331 

thus  precipitately  proceeds  to  the  last  extremity  against 
his  rival  Bishop,  the  Emperor  is  still  sacred  against 
the  condemnation  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Zeno  had 
issued  the  Henoticon.  Zeno  had,  by  so  doing,  usurped 
the  power  of  dictating  religious  articles  to  the  clergy. 
Zeno,  if  he  had  not  ordered,  sanctioned  all  this  re- 
establishment  of  the  Bishops  who  had  not  acceded 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon ;  but  to  Zeno  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Pontiff  is  respectful,  and  bordering  on 
adulation.  The  monks,  the  allies  of  Felix,  were  ready 
to  encounter  any  peril.  One  of  the  sleepless  fastened 
the  fatal  parchment  to  the  dress  of  Acacius,  as  he 
was  about  to  officiate  in  the  Church.  Acacius  quietly 
proceeded  in  the  holy  ceremony.  Suddenly  he  paused ; 
with  calm,  clear  voice,  he  ordered  the  name  Aug.  i,  A.D. 

484. 

of  Felix,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  be  struck  out  Acacius  ex- 

f    ,,  ,,        c    -.  .  ,  .  .  .  1     communi- 

ot  the  roll  or    bishops   in  communion  with  <*»«»  Feiix. 
the  East.     The  ban  of  Rome  was  encountered  by  the 
ban  of  Constantinople.1 

The  schism  divided  the  Churches  of  the  East  and 
West  for  nearly  forty  years,  down  to  the  ^bigm  of 
Pontificate  of  Hormisdas  and  the  empire  of  forty  years- 
Justinian,  under  whose  sway  Italy  became  subject  to 
the  Byzantine  sovereign.  Overtures  of  reconciliation 
were  made,  but  Felix  at  least  adhered  inflexibly  to  his 
demand,  that  the  name  of  Acacius  should  be  erased 
from  the  diptychs.  The  great  Eastern  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem,  utterly  disregard- 
ing the  anathema  of  Rome,  continued  in  communion 
with  Acacius  and  his  successors.  Acacius,  notwith- 
standing the  incitements  to  spiritual  rebellion  addressed 

1  Julius,  the  messenger  of  Felix,  quailed  before  the  danger,  or  was  bribed 
by  Byzantine  gold. 


332  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  his  clergy  and  to  the  turbu- 
lent monks,  maintained  his  throne  till  his  death  l 

Acacius    (I   trace   rapidly  the    history   of  Eastern 
A.D.  489.        Christianity  until  the  reunion  with  the  West") 

Fravitta  J 

Bi8hoPof      was  succeeded  by  Iravitta  or  Flavitta,  who 

Constant!-  .  -* 

nopie.          occupied  the   throne   but   tor  tour  months.-* 


s.  The  election  then  fell  on  Euphemius. 
The  Bishops  of  Constantinople  might  defy  the  spir- 
itual thunders  of  Rome,  but  though  Acacius  had  once 
triumphed  over  an  usurping  Emperor,  in  daring  to  con- 
flict with  the  established  Imperial  authority,  they  but 
betrayed  their  own  weakness.  During  the  reign  of  the 
Emperor  Anastasius,  two  Bishops  of  Constantinople, 
having  justly  or  unjustly  incurred  the  Imperial  dis- 
pleasure, were  degraded  from  their  sees.  The  Em- 
peror Anastasius  has  been  handed  down  to  posterity 
with  the  praise  of  profound  piety,  and  the  imputation 
of  Eutychianism,  Arianism,  and  even  Manicheism. 
Anastasius  ascended  the  throne,  though  Euphemius 
had  exerted  all  his  authority  to  prevent  his  elevation, 
through  his  marriage  with  the  Empress  Ariadne.  It 
is  said  that  an  old  quarrel,  while  Anastasius  was  yet  in 
a  humbler  station,  rankled  in  both  their  hearts.  The 
Bishop  had  threatened  to  shave  the  head  of  the  domes- 
tic of  the  palace,  and  expose  him  as  a  spectacle  to  the 
people.  The  mother  of  Anastasius  and  his  mother's 
brother  had  been  Arians,  and  Euphemius  took  care 
that  dark  suspicions  of  Anastasius  on  this  vital  point 
should  be  disseminated  in  the  empire.  But  Anastasius, 
in  the  conscientious  conviction  of  his  own  orthodoxy, 

1  Felicia  Epist.  x.  xi.  :  ad  durum  et  Plebem  Constantin.  et  ad  Monachos 
Gonstantin.  et  Bithyniae. 

2  Felix  addressed  a  letter  to  Fravitta  adjuring  him  to  abandon  the  cause 
of  Acacius  aud  Peter,  and  unite  with  Rome. 


CHAP.  I.  FOUR    PARTIES    IN    THE    EAST.  333 

and  that  virtue  which  had  called  forth  the  popular 
acclamation,  "  Reign  as  you  have  lived,"  dared  to  en- 
force despotic  toleration.  The  East  was  now  divided 
into  four  religious  parties.  1.  Those  who,  with  the 
Roman  Pontiff  and  the  monks  of  Constantinople,  held 
inflexibly  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  Four  parties 
demanded  the  distinct  recognition  of  its  doc-  in  the  East' 
trines.  These  were  not  content  with  the  anathema 
against  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  and  Dioscorus :  they  in- 
sisted on  including  under  the  malediction  Acacius  and 
Peter  the  Stammerer.1  2.  Those  who,  holding  the 
tenets  of  Chalcedon,  had  yet  subscribed  the  Henoticon, 
and  for  the  sake  of  peace  would  not  compel  the  accept- 
ance of  tlie  Chalcedonian  decrees.  Among  these  were 

o 

Euphemius  of  Constantinople  before  the  accession  of 
Anastasius,  and  at  first  his  successor  Macedonius,  and 
the  Patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  ;  all  the  four 
great  Prelates  had  subscribed  the  Henoticon.  3. 
Those  who  subscribed  the  Henoticon,  and  abhorred  the 
decrees  of  Chalcedon ;  these  were  chiefly  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  with  the  Bishops  of  Egypt  and  Libya. 
4.  The  Acephali,  the  Eutychian  party,  who  held  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  to  be  a  Nestorian  conclave,  and 
cherished  the  memory  of  Dioscorus  and  of  Eutyches. 
Anastasius  issued  his  mandate,  that  no  bishop  should 
compel  a  reluctant  people  to  adhere  to  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon ;  no  bishop  should  compel  a  people  which 
adhered  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  abandon  its 
principles.  Many  who  infringed  on  tin's  law  of  Impe- 
rial charity  were  deposed  with  impartial  severity. 
Euphemius  had  extorted  from  the  Emperor  Anastasius, 
as  a  kind  of  price  for  his  accession,  a  written  assevera- 

1  Evagrius,  iii.  31. 


334  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

tion  of  allegiance  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  an 
oath  that  he  would  maintain  inviolate  those  articles 
which  he  had  been  with  difficulty  compelled  to  surren- 
der. Euphemius,  it  might  seem,  as  a  rebuke  against 
the  comprehensive  measures  of  the  Emperor,  held  a 
synod,  in  which  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Chalee- 
don  were  confirmed ;  but  though  this  might  be  among 
the  secret  causes,  it  was  not  the  crime  for  which  Anas- 
tasius  demanded  the  degradation  of  Euphemius.1 

The  Isaurian  rebellion  disturbed  the  earlier  period 
of  the  reign  of  Anastasius ;  it  lasted  for  five  years. 
The  Bishop  Euphemius  tampered  in  treasonable  pro- 
ceedings ;  he  was  accused  of  traitorous  correspondence, 
A.D.  495.  or  at  least  of  betraying  the  secrets  of  the 
state  to  these  formidable  rebels.  The  Emperor  sum- 
moned a  Council ;  Euphemius  was  deposed,  sent  into 
exile,  and  died  in  obscurity:  he  has  left  a  doubtful 
fame.  The  Latin  writers  hesitate  whether  he  was  a 
martyr  or  a  heretic.2 

Macedonius  was  promoted  to  the  vacant  See.3  Mac- 
Macedonius  edonius,  a  man  of  gentle  but  too  flexible  dis- 
conhstan°ti-  position,  began  his  prelacy  by  an  act  of  unu- 
nople'  sual  courtesy  to  his  fallen  predecessor.  He 

performed  the  act  of  degradation  with  forbearance. 
Before  he  saluted  him  in  the  Baptistery,  he  took  off  the 
episcopal  habiliment,  and  appeared  in  the  dress  of  a 
Priest;  he  supplied  the  exile  with  money,  borrowed 
money,  for  his  immediate  use.  Macedonius  subscribed 
the  Henoticon,  and  still  the  four  groat  Patriarchates 
were  held  in  '  Christian  fellowship  by  that  bond  of 
union.  At  the  command  of  the  Emperor,  Macedo- 

1  Evagrius,  Theophanes,  p.  117.    Victor,  xvi.  xvii. 

2  Walch,  p.  974.  8  Theophanes. 


CHAP.  I.  MACEDONIUS.  335 

nius  undertook  the  hopeless  task  of  reconciling  the 
four  great  Monasteries,  among  them  that  of  the  Akoi- 
metoi,  and  the  female  convent  then  presided  over  by 
Matrona,  with  the  communion  of  the  Church  under 
the  Henoticon.  The  inflexible  monks  would  give  up 
no  letter  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  —  they  declared 
themselves  prepared  rather  to  suffer  exile.1  Matrona, 
a  woman  of  the  austerest  life,  endured  with  patience, 
which  wrought  strongly  on  men's  minds,  acts  of  vio- 
lence used  by  a  Deacon  to  compel  her  to  submission. 
The  mild  Macedonius,  instead  of  converting  them,  was 
himself  overawed  by  their  rigor  into  a  strong  partisan 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon ;  he  inclined  to  make 
overtures  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  Gelasius  I.;  but 
Anastasius  prohibited  such  proceedings;  he  had  de- 
clared himself  resolved  against  all  innovations. 

The  Eastern  wars  occupied  for  some  years  the  mind 
of  Anastasius.  In  the  mean  time  the  compressed  fires 
of  religious  discord  were  struggling  to  burst  forth  and 
convulse  the  realm.  Macedonius  had  hardened  into  a 
stern,  almost  a  fanatic  partisan  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon. John  Nicetas  had  ascended  the  throne  of  Al- 
exandria: he  subscribed  the  Henoticon,  but  declared 
that  it  was  an  insufficient  exposition  of  the  true  doc- 
trine, as  not  explicitly  condemning  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  Flavianus  filled  the  See  of  Antioch  — 
Elias  that  of  Jerusalem.  Elias  was  disposed  to  reject 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon :  Flavianus  was  in-  Confusion  at 
clined  to  rest  on  the  neutral  ground  of  the  Antioch 
Henoticon.  But  the  Monophysite  party  in  Syria, 
which  seemed  greatly  reduced  in  numbers,  and  content 
to  seclude  itself  within  the  peaceful  monasteries,  sud- 
1  Theophanes,  Chronog.,  ed  Bekker,  i.  219. 


336  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

denly  having  found  a  bold  and  reckless  leader,  burst  out 
in  fierce  insurrection.  Xenaias,1  or  Philoxenus,  Bishop 
of  Hierapolis,  began  to  agitate  the  whole  region  by  ac- 
cusing Flavianus  as  a  Nestorian.  Flavianus,  to  excul- 
pate himself,  issued  his  anathema  against  Nestorius  and 
his  opinions.  Xenaias  imperiously  demanded  the 
anathema,  not  of  Nestorius  alone,  but  of  Ibas,  The- 
odoret  of  Cyrus,  and  a  host  of  other  bishops,  who  from 
time  to  time  had  been  charged  with  Nestorianism. 
Flavianus  resisted.  But  the  followers  of  Eutyches 
and  Dioscorus  sprung  up  on  all  sides.  Eleusinius,  a 
bishop  of  Cappadocia,  and  Nicias  of  the  Syrian  Laodi- 
cea,  joined  their  ranks.  Flavianus  consented  to  involve 
all  whom  they  chose  thus  to  denounce  in  one  sweeping 
malediction.  Xenaias,  flushed  with  his  victory,  still 
refused  to  absolve  the  timid  bishop  from  the  hated  name 
of  Nestorian.  He  required  his  explicit  condemnation 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  of  all  who  asserted 
the  two  natures  in  Christ.  Flavianus  still  struggled  in 
the  toils  of  these  inexorable  polemics,  who  were  re- 
solved to  convict  him,  subscribe  what  he  might,  as  a 
secret  Nestorian.  Swarms  of  monks  crowded  from  the 
district  of  Cynegica,  and  filling  the  streets  of  Antioch, 
insisted  on  the  direct  condemnation  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  and  the  letter  of  Pope  Leo.2  The  people 
of  Antioch  rose  in  defence  of  their  bishop,  slew  some 
of  the  monks,  and  drove  the  rest  into  the  Orontes, 
where  many  lost  their  lives.  Another  party  of  monks 
from  Coelesyria,  where  Flavianus  himself  had  dwelt  in 
the  convent  of  Talmognon,  hastened  to  form  a  guard 
for  his  person. 

1  Xenaias,  interpreted  by  the  hostile  monks  of  Jerusalem,  "  The  stranger 
to  Catholic  doctrine." 

a  Evagrius,  iii.  31,  32. 


CHAP.  I.  CONFUSION  AT  ANTIOCH.  337 

The  Emperor  Anastasius  in  the  mean  time  on  his 
return  from  the  East  found  Macedonius,  in-  A.D.  505-6. 
stead  of  a  mild  assertor  of  the  Henoticon,  at  the  head 
of  one,  and  that  the  most  dangerous  and  violent  of  the 
religious  factions.  Rumors  were  industriously  spread 
abroad,  that  the  Emperor's  secret  Manicheism  had 
been  confirmed  in  the  East.  A  Persian  painter  had 
been  employed  in  one  of  the  palaces,  and  had  covered 
the  walls,  not  with  the  orthodox  human  forms  wor- 
shipped by  the  Church,  but  with  the  mysterious  and 
symbolic  figures  of  the  Manichean  heresy.  Anastasius, 
insulted  by  the  fanatic  populace,  was  escorted  to  the 
Council  and  to  the  churches  by  the  Prefect  at  the  head 
of  a  strong  guard.  Anastasius  was  driven  by  degrees 
(an  Emperor  of  his  commanding  character  should  not 
have  been  driven)  to  favor  the  opposing  party.  John, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  sent  to  offer,  it  is  A.D.SIO. 
said,  two  hundred  pounds  of  gold,  as  a  tribute,  a  sub- 
sidy, or  a  bribe,  to  induce  the  Emperor  to  abrogate  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  John,  however,  publicly  main- 
tained the  neutrality  of  the  Henoticon,  neither  receiv- 
ing nor  repudiating  the  Council.  His  legates  were 
received  with  honor.  Anastasius  compelled  the 
Bishop  Macedonius  to  admit  them  to  communion. 
Xenaias,  the  persecutor  of  Flavianus,  was  likewise 
received  with  honor.  Worse  than  all,  two  hundred 
Eastern  monks,  headed  by  Severus,  were  permitted 
to  land  in  Constantinople  ;  they  here  found  an  honor- 
able reception.  Other  monks  of  the  opposite  faction 
swarmed  from  Palestine.  The  two  black-cowled  ar- 
mies watched  each  other  for  some  months,  working  in 
secret  on  their  respective  partisans.1  At  length  they 

1  Each  party  of  course  throws  the  blame  of  the  insurrection  on  the  other. 
VOL.  i.  22 


338  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

».».  6ii.  came  to  a  rupture  ;  and  in  their  strife,  which 
he  either  dared  not,  or  did  not  care  to  control,  the  throne, 
the  liberty,  the  life  itself  of  the  Emperor  were  in  peril. 
The  Monophysite  monks  in  the  church  of  the  Arch- 
angel within  the  palace  broke  out  after  the  "  Thrice 
Holy,"  with  the  burden  added  at  Antioch  by  Peter 
the  Fuller,  "  who  wast  crucified  for  us."  The  ortho- 
dox monks,  backed  by  the  rabble  of  Constantinople, 
endeavored  to  expel  them  from  the  church  ;  they  were 
not  content  with  hurling  curses  against  each  other, 
sticks  and  stones  began  their  work.  There  was  a 
wild,  fierce  fray ;  the  divine  presence  of  the  Emperor 
lost  its  awe;  he  could  not  maintain  the  peace.  The 
Bishop  Macedonius  either  took  the  lead,  or  was 
Tumults  in  compelled  to  lead  the  tumult.  Men,  women, 

Constant!-  * 

nopie.  children,  poured  out  from  all  quarters ;    the 

monks,  with  their  Archimandrites,  at  the  head  of  the 
raging  multitude,  echoed  back  their  religious  war-cry : 
"  It  is  the  day  of  martyrdom.  Let  us  not  desert  our 
spiritual  Father.  Down  with  the  tyrant !  the  Mani- 
chean  !  he  is  unworthy  of  the  throne."  The  gates  of 
the  palace  were  barred  against  the  furious  mob  ;  the 
imperial  galleys  Were  manned,  ready  for  flight  to 
the  Asiatic  shore.  The  Emperor  was  reduced  to 
the  humiliation  of  receiving  the  Bishop  Macedonius, 
whom  he  had  prohibited  from  approaching  his  presence, 
as  his  equal,  almost  as  his  master.  As  Macedonius 
passed  along,  the  populace  hailed  him  as  their  beloved 
father;  even  the  military  applauded.  Macedonius 
rebuked  the  Emperor  for  his  hostility  to  the  Church. 

The  later  writers,  who  are  all  of  the  orthodox  party,  ascribe  it  to  the 
Syrian  monks.  Evagrius  (iii.  c.  44)  quotes  a  letter  of  Severus,  written  be- 
fore he  was  Bishop  of  Antioch,  charging  the  whole  disturbance  on  Mace- 
donius and  the  clergy  of  Constantinople. 


CHAP.  I.  EXILE  OF  MACEDONIUS.  339 

Anastasius  condescended  to  dissemble ;  peace  was 
restored  with  difficulty.  Macedonius  seems  to  have 
been  of  feeble  character,  unfit  to  conduct  this  inter- 
necine strife  between  the  Patriarchate  and  the  Empire 
for  supreme  authority.  Enemies  would  not  be  wanting, 
even  had  the  strife  not  been  for  religion,  to  the  enemy 
of  the  Emperor ;  and  all  acts  of  enmity  to  the  Patri- 
arch, whether  sanctioned  or  not  by  the  Emperor,  would 
be  laid  to  his  charge.  An  accusation  of  loathsome 
incontinence  was  brought  forward  against  the  Bishop  ; 
he  calmly  refuted  it  by  proving  its  impossibility.  His 
life  was  attempted ;  he  pardoned  the  assassin.  But 
this  Christian  gentleness  softened  into  infirmity.  One 
day  he  weakly  subscribed  a  Creed,  in  which  he  recog- 
nized only  the  Councils  of  Nicea  and  Constantinople ; 
his  silence  about  those  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  im- 
plied his  rejection  of  their  authority.  His  monkish 
masters  broke  out  in  furious  invectives.  The  Patriarch 
stooped  to  appear  before  them  in  the  monastery  of  Saint 
Dalmatius ;  and  not  merely  expressed  his  adhesion  to  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  he  uttered  his  anathema  against 
all  recusants  of  its  decrees.  The  Emperor  had  been 
silently  watching  Ms  opportunity.  The  Bishop  was 
seized  by  night ;  without  tumult,  without  resistance, 
he  was  conveyed  to  the  Asiatic  shore,  thence  A  D  511 
into  banishment  at  Euchaita,  his  predecessor's  a^dle^r 
place  of  exile.  A  well-chosen  synod  of  bish-  Macedonius- 
ops  declared  the  deposition  of  Macedonius  :*  Timo- 
theus  was  elected  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  Timotheus 

1  Evagrius  intimates  that  Macedonius  was  persuaded  to  a  voluntary 
abdication.  According  to  Theophanes,  (Edd.  Bekker,  i.  240,)  Anastasius 
endeavored  to  gain  possession  of  the  original  registers  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  to  destroy  or  to  corrupt  them.  Macedonius  sealed  them  up  and 
nut  them  in  a  place  of  safety. 


340  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

signed  the  Henoticon ;  he  went  farther,  he  laid  his 
curse  on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Timotheus  wag 
acknowledged  by  Flavianus  of  Antioch,  by  John  of 
Alexandria,  and  by  Elias  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  con- 
cession secured  not  the  throne  of  Flavianus.  The 
Monophysite  monk  Severus,  who  had  stirred  up  the 
populace  of  Alexandria  and  of  Constantinople  to  relig- 
ious riot,  and  had  won  the  favor  of  Anastasius  as 
acquiescing  in  the  Henoticon,  now  appeared  in  Antioch 
as  the  rival  of  Flavianus.  Flavianus  was  deposed, 
Severus  was  bishop.  He  would  now  no  longer  keep  on 
the  mask ;  he  condemned  in  the  strongest  terms  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  monkish  party,  wliich 
had  been  persecuted  by,  and  in  turn  persecuted  Fla- 
A.D.  513.  vianus,  and  to  which  he  had  in  vain  made 
such  ignoble  concessions,  was  dominant  in  Antioch : 
Severus  ruled  supreme.  At  Jerusalem  the  orthodox 
wera  the  strongest ;  and  Elias,  who  would  not  go  all 
lengths  with  them,  was  likewise  compelled  to  abdicate 
his  see.  Throughout  Asiatic  Christendom  it  was  the 
same  wild  struggle.  Bishops  deposed  quietly ;  or, 
where  resistance  was  made,  the  two  factions  fighting  in 
the  streets,  in  the  churches :  cities,  even  the  holiest 
places,  ran  with  Christian  blood. 

In  Constantinople  it  was  not  the  throne  of  the 
Bishop,  but  that  of  the  Emperor  which  trembled  to  its 
Constantino-  base.  Anastasius,  who  had  so  nobly  and  suc- 

ple  again  in 

insurrection,  cessfully  wielded  the  arms  of  the  Empire 
against  the  Persians,  found  his  power  in  Constantino- 
ple, in  his  Asiatic  provinces,  in  his  European  domin- 
ions, crumbling  beneath  him.  His  foes  were  not  on 
the  frontier,  they  were  at  the  gates  of  Constantinople, 
in  Constantinople,  in  his  palace.  He  was  now  eighty 


CHAP.  I.        CONSTANTINOPLE  IN  INSURRECTION.  841 

years  old.  The  martial  courage  which  he  had  dis- 
played in  his  Eastern  campaigns  might  seem  decayed  ; 
his  aged  hand  could  no  longer  hold  with  the  same 
equable  firmness  the  balance  of  religious  neutrality  ;  it 
may  have  trembled  towards  the  Monophysite  party  ; 
he  may  have  brought  something  of  the  irritability  and 
obstinacy  of  age  into  the  contest.  The  year  *•»•  512. 
after  the  exile  of  Macedonius,  Constantinople,  at  the 
instigation  of  the  clergy  and  the  monks,  broke  out 
again  in  religious  insurrection.  The  blue  and  green 
factions  of  the  Circus  —  such  is  the  language  of  the 
times  —  gave  place  to  these  more  maddening  conflicts. 
The  hymn  of  the  Angels  in  Heaven  was  the  battle-cry 
on  earth,  the  signal  for  human  bloodshed.  Many 
palaces  of  the  nobles  were  set  on  fire  ;  the  officers  of  the 
crown  insulted  ;  pillage,  conflagration,  violence,  raged 
through  the  city.  A  peasant  who  had  turned  monk 
was  torn  from  the  palace  of  the  favorite  Syrian  minister 
of  Anastasius,  Marinus  (he  was  accused  of  having 
introduced  the  profane  burden  to  the  angelic  hymn)  ; 
his  head  was  struck  off,  carried  about  on  a  pole,  with 
shouts,  "  Behold  the  enemy  of  the  Trinity."  l  The 
hoary  Emperor  appeared  in  the  Circus,  and  commanded 
the  heralds  to  announce  to  the  people  that  he  was  pre- 
pared to  abdicate  the  Empire,  if  they  could  agree  in 
the  choice  of  his  successor.  The  piteous  spectacle 
soothed  the  fury  of  the  people ;  they  entreated  Anas- 
tasius to  resume  the  diadem.  But  the  blood  of  two  of 
his  ministers  was  demanded  as  a  sacrifice  to  appease 
'heir  vengeance.2 

1  Evagrius,  iii.  44. 

2  The  Pope  Gelasius  writes  to  the  Emperor,  "  You  fear  the  people  of 
Constantinople,  who  are  attached  to  the  name  of  Acacius,-  the  people  of 
Constantinople  have  preferred  Catholic  truth  to  the  cause  of  their  bishops 


342  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

But  it  is  not  insurrection  in  Constantinople  alone, 
Reroit  of       the  empire  is  in  revolt  on  the  question  of  the 

Vitalianus,  .  .  * 

A.D.  514.  two  natures  in  Christ.  Ihe  nrst  great  relig- 
ious war,  alas  for  many  centuries  not  the  last !  emper- 
ils  the  tottering  throne  of  Anastasius.  The  Thracian 
Vitalianus  is  in  open  rebellion  ;  obtains  a  great  victory 
over  the  Imperial  general  Hypatius ;  wastes  Thrace, 
depopulates  the  whole  country  —  the  whole  realm  — 
up  to  the  gates  of  Constantinople.  He  is  before  the 
city  at  the  head  of  60,000  men.  His  banner,  his  war- 
cry,  is  that  of  religious  orthodoxy ;  he  proclaims  him- 
self the  champion,  not  of  an  oppressed  people,  of  a 
nobility  indignant  at  the  tyranny  of  their  sovereign, 
but  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Cries  are  heard 
within  the  city  (not  obscurely  traced  to  the  clergy  and 
the  monks)  proclaiming  Vitalianus  Emperor ;  and  the 
army  of  this  first  religious  war  in  Christendom  is  com- 
posed chiefly  of  Huns  and  Barbarians,  a  great  part  of 
them  still  heathens.  But  Vitalianus  had  allies  in  the 
West:  from  some  obscure  quarrel,  or  from  jealousy 
of  the  Emperor  of  the  East,  he  boasts  the  alliance  of 
Theodoric,  the  Arian  Ostrogoth ;  as  the  champion  of 
orthodoxy  he  boasts  too  the  countenance  of  Hormisdas, 
Bishop  of  Rome.1 

Hacedonius  (then  supposed  to  be  unsound)  and  Nestorius.  You  have 
suppressed  their  tumults  in  the  games,  you  will  control  them  if  they  break 
out  in  religious  insurrection."  A  singular  testimony  to  the  two  great  rivaJ 
causes  which  roused  the  mob  of  Constantinople  to  mutiny. 

i  The  accounts  of  these  transactions,  and  their  dates,  are  confused,  almost 
irreconcilable.  According  to  Evagrius  (iii.  43),  Yitalinnus  was  defeated 
in  a  naval  battle,  and  fled  in  a  single  ship:  according  to  Theophanes  and 
others,  he  dictated  terms  of  peace,  the  restoration  of  the  bishops,  and  the 
Council  of  Heraclea,  These  terms  Anastasius  perfidiously  violated,  declar- 
ing that  an  emperor  was  justified,  more  than  justified,  in  swearing  to  trea- 
ties, and  breaking  his  oath  to  preserve  his  power,  —  6  6e  Trapdvo/w?  uvaiduf 
vo/wv  dvcu  xefevovra  Saottea  HUT'  avdyicrjv  intopKetv  Kal  tyevdeo- 


CHAP.  I.          STATE  OF  THE  EAST.  343 

The  grey  hairs  of  Anastasius  were  again  brought 
down  to  shame  and  sorrow  ;  he  must  stoop  to  Humiliation 
an  ignominious  peace.  If  we  are  to  credit  the  of  Anastafiiu»- 
monastic  historians,  the  end  aimed  at  and  attained  by 
this  insurrection,  which  had  desolated  provinces  and 
caused  the  death  of  thousands  of  human  beings,  was  a 
treaty  which  promised  the  reestablishment  of  Mace- 
donius  and  Flavianus  on  the  archiepiscopal  thrones  of 
Constantinople  and  Antioch ;  and  the  summoning  a 
Council  at  Heraclea,  in  which  Hormisdas,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  was  to  appear  by  his  legates,  and  no  doubt 
hoped  to  dictate  the  decrees  of  the  assembly. 

The  few  last  inglorious  years  of  the  reign  of  Anas- 
tasius, its  dark  close,  his  miserable  death,  his  A.D.  514-518. 
damnation,  according  to  his  relentless  foes,  must  be  re- 
served for  the  period  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  (Hor- 
misdas) appears  in  a  commanding  character  in  the 
arena  of  Constantinople  :  and  if  he  does  not  terminate, 
prepares  the  termination  of  the  schism  of  above  forty 
years  between  Eastern  and  Western  Christianity. 

We  turn  away  with  willingness  from  the  dismal  and 
wearisome  period,  in  which,  in  the  East,  all  State  of  the 
that  is  noble  and  generous  in  religious  con-  East- 
viction  disappears  and  gives  place  to  dark  intrigues  and 
ignorant  fury.      Men  suffer  all  the  degradation  and 
misery,  incur  all  the  sin  of  persecution  almost  without 
the  lofty  motive  of  honest  zeal.     It  is  a  time  of  fierce 
and  busy  polemics,  without  a  great  writer.     The  He- 
noticon  is  a  work  of  some  skill,  of  some  adroitness,  in 
attempting  to  reconcile,  in  eluding,  evading,  theolog- 

$ot.  ravra  6  Trapavo/iuraTOf  fiavi^ato^puv.  —  p.  248.  I  think,  with  Gib- 
bon, following  Tillemont  and  older  authorities,  that  there  is  no  doubt  of  the 
rwo  insurrections  in  Constantinople. 


344  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

ical  difficulties ;  it  is  subtle  to  escape  subtleties.  But 
there  was  no  vigorous  and  manly,  even  if  intolerant 
writer,  like  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  whom  we  contemplate 
with  far  different  estimation  in  his  acts  and  in  his 
writings. 

But  that  which  is  the  characteristic  sign  of  the 
The  influence  times,  as  a  social  and  political,  as  well  as  a 
:8'  religious  phenomenon,  is  the  complete  do- 
minion assumed  by  the  monks  in  the  East  over  the 
public  mind,  and  the  depravation  of  monasticism  from 
its  primal  principles.  Those  who  had  forsaken  the 
world  aspire  to  rule  the  world.  The  minds  which  are 
to  be  absolutely  estranged  from  earth  mingle  in  its  most 
furious  tumults.  Instead  of  total  seclusion  from  the 
habits  and  pursuits  of  men,  the  Crenobites  sweep  the 
streets  of  the  great  cities  in  armed  bodies,  displaying 
an  irregular  valor  which  sometimes  puts  to  shame  the 
languid  patriotism  of  the  Imperial  soldiery.  Even  the 
Eremites,  instead  of  shrouding  themselves  in  the  re- 
motest wilderness,  and  burying  themselves  in  the  dark- 
est and  most  inaccessible  caverns,  mount  their  pillars  in 
some  conspicuous  place,  even  in  some  place  of  public 
resort.  While  they  seem  to  despise  the  earth  below, 
and  to  enjoy  the  undisturbed  serenity  of  heaven,  they 
are  not  unconscious  that  they  are  the  oracles  as  well  as 
the  objects  of  amazement  to  the  admiring  multitudes 
around ;  that  Emperors  come  to  consult  them  as 
seers  and  prophets,  as  well  as  infallible  interpreters  of 
divine  truth.  They  even  descend  into  the  cities  to  be- 
come spiritual  demagogues.  The  monks,  in  fact,  exrr- 
cise  the  most  complete  tyranny,  not  merely  over  the 
laity,  but  over  bishops  and  patriarchs,  whose  rule, 
though  nominally  subject  to  it,  they  throw  off  when- 


CHAP.  I.  TYKANNY  OF  THE  MONKS.  345 

ever  it  suits  their  purposes.  Those  who  might  seem 
the  least  qualified,  from  their  vague  and  abstract  devo- 
tion, to  decide  questions  which  depended  on  niceties  of 
language,  on  the  finest  rhetorical  distinctions,  are  the 
dictators  of  the  world.  Monks  in  Alexandria,  monks 
in  Antioch,  monks  in  Jerusalem,  monks  in  Constanti- 
nople, decide  peremptorily  on  orthodoxy  and  hetero- 
doxy. The  bishops  themselves  cower  before  them. 
Macedonius  in  Constantinople,  Flavianus  in  Antioch, 
Elias  in  Jerusalem,  condemn  themselves,  and  abdicate 
or  are  driven  from  their  sees.  Persecution  is  uni- 
versal ;  persecution  by  every  means  of  violence  and 
cruelty ;  the  only  question  is  in  whose  hands  is  the 
power  to  persecute.  In  Antioch,  Xenaias  (Philoxe- 
nus,  a  famous  name)  justifies  his  insurrection  by  the 
persecutions  which  he  has  endured ;  Flavianus  bitterly 
and  justly  complains  of  the  persecutions  of  Xenaias. 
Bloodshed,  murder,  treachery,  assassination,  even  dur- 
ing the  public  worship  of  God,  —  these  are  the  fright- 
ful means  by  which  each  party  strives  to  maintain  its 
opinions,  and  to  defeat  its  adversary.  Ecclesiastical 
and  civil  authority  are  alike  paralyzed  by  combinations 
of  fanatics  ready  to  suffer  or  to  inflict  death,  utterly 
unapproachable  by  reason.  If  they  had  not  mingled 
in  the  fray,  peace  might  perhaps  have  been  restored 
with  no  serious  detriment  to  orthodox  doctrine.  If  in 
the  time  of  Zeno  there  had  been  no  monks,  no  Akoi- 
metoi,  in  Constantinople ;  if  these  fanatics  had  not 
been  in  treasonable  correspondence  with  strangers,  and 
supported  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  —  temperate  and 
orthodox  bishops  like  Macedonius  and  Flavianus  might 
have  allayed  the  storm.  The  evil  lay  partly  in  the 
mode  of  life ;  the  seclusion,  which  fostered  both  igno- 


346  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  TIL 

ranee  and  presumption,  and  magnified  insignificant 
matters  to  questions  of  spiritual  life  and  death  ;  and  the 
strong  corporate  spirit,  which  gave  a  consciousness  of 
strength  which  bound  them  together  as  one  man  in 
whatever  cause  they  might  espouse.  The  Emperor 
might  depose  a  busy  and  refractory  bishop,  what  could 
be  done  with  a  fraternity  of  a  thousand  men  ?  They 
had  already  the  principle  of  organization,  union,  and 
mutual  confidence,  and  arms  in  their  hands.  They 
became  legions.  It  is  at  the  head  of  such  an  army  that 
Severus,  a  stranger,  makes  himself  formidable  in  Con- 
stantinople. A  more  powerful  adverse  army  heads  the 
mob  of  Constantinople  and  reduces  the  Emperor  Anas- 
tasius  to  beg  his  crown,  if  not  his  life.  Relying  on 
these  internal  allies  in  the  heart  of  his  enemy's  camp, 
Vitalianus  besieges  Constantinople,  and  dictates  a  capit- 
ulation, embodying  their  demands  and  those  of  their 
acknowledged  head,  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Alexandria 
is  at  the  mercy  of  such  hosts,  who  pour  in  from  the 
surrounding  monasteries  on  all  sides.  Even  during 
the  last  years  of  Anastasius,  at  the  election  of  the 
bishop,  another  Dioscorus,  the  chief  Imperial  officer, 
is  slain  in  the  streets.  Hosts  of  monks  encounter  in 
Syria,  meet  in  the  field  of  battle,  consider  that  zeal  di- 
vine with  which  they  strive,  not  to  instruct  and  en- 
lighten, but  to  compel  each  other  to  subscribe  the  same 
confession,  each  slaying  and  dying  in  unshaken  assur- 
ance that  eternal  salvation  depended  on  the  proper 
sense  of  the  words  "  in  "  and  "  out  of; "  tin-  acceptance 
or  rejection  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  includ- 
ing its  dire  anathemas.1  To  monasticism  may  unques- 

1 1  have  incorporated  with  my  own  observations  many  sentences  from  * 
paaeage  in  a  writer  of  the  old  German  school,  Walch,  who,  having  investi- 


CHAP.  I.  GELASIUS  I.  347 

tionablj  be  attributed  the  obstinate  continuance,  per- 
haps the  fury,  of  the  Monophysite  war.  We  shall 
hereafter  encounter  monasticism  in  the  West  in  another 
character,  as  compensating,  at  least  in  a  great  degree, 
for  its  usurpation  of  the  dignity  of  a  higher  and  holier 
Christianity,  by  becoming  the  guardian  of  what  was 
valuable,  the  books  and  arts  of  the  old  world ;  as  the 
missionary  of  what  was  holy  and  Christian  in  the  new 
civilization ;  as  the  chief  maintainer,  if  not  the  restorer 
of  agriculture  in  Italy ;  as  the  cultivator  of  the  forests 
and  morasses  of  the  north ;  as  the  apostle  of  the  hea- 
thens which  dwelt  beyond  the  pale  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire. 

We  are  again  in  the  West,  reascending  and  passing 
in  review  Latin  Christianity  and  its  primates  j^^  to  the 
during   the  same,  by  no  means   a   brilliant  West- 
period:  their  sometimes  enforced  or  uncongenial,  but 
still  ever  ready  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  the  East, 
from   the  time  when  Pope  Felix   and  Acacius  issue 
their   hostile   interdicts,    and    Constantinople  A.D.  434-519. 
and  Rome  are  at  open  war,  more  or  less  violent,  dur- 
ing five  and  thirty  years. 

Between  the  pontificate  of  Felix  III.  and  the  rap- 
ture with  Constantinople  (it  might  seem  the  Geiasius 1. 
implacable   estrangement   of    the   East    and  Marchl>492- 
West)  to  the  accession  of  Hormisdas,  intervened  three 
Popes,  Gelasius  I.,  Anastasius  I.,  Symmachus. 

Gelasius,  a  Roman,  seemed,  as  a  Roman,  to  assume 
the  plenitude  of  Roman  dignity.  From  the  first,  he 
adhered  to  all  the  lofty  pretensions  of  his  predecessor, 

gated  the  whole  of  these  transactions  with  unrivalled  industry  and  candor, 
and  with  the  almost  apathetic  impartiality  of  his  school,  seems  suddenly  to 
break  out  into  something  approaching  to  eloquence.  Walch,  Ketzer-Ges- 
ehichte,  vol.  vii. 


348  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

and  in  his  frequent  and  elaborate  writings  vindicated 
all  the  acts  of  Felix.  He  inexorably  demanded,  as  the 
preliminary  to  any  peaceful  treaty,  that  the  name  of 
Acacius  should  be  expunged  from  the  diptychs.  No 
power  could  now  retrieve  or  rescue  Acacius  from  his 
inevitable  doom  —  Acacius,  who  had  not  only  disre- 
garded the  excommunication  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
but  presumed  to  emulate  his  power  of  pronouncing 
damnation.  Constantinople  must  absolutely  abandon 
the  champion  of  her  coequality,  if  not  her  superiority. 
Acacius,  all  his  followers,  all  who  respect  his  memory, 
must  share  his  irrevocable  proscription.1  The  Roman 
Gelasius  endeavors  to  awaken  a  kindred  pride  in  the 
Emperor  Anastasius,  now  the  sole  representative  of 
Roman  sovereignty  ; 2  for  Italy  is  under  the  dominion 
of  the  Goth.  Gelasius  might  even  seem  to  cherish 
some  secret  hope  of  the  deliverance  of  Rome  from  its 
barbaric  lord,  by  the  intervention  of  the  yet  Roman 
East.  But  at  the  same  time  Gelasius  asserts  boldly, 
for  the  first  time,  in  these  strong  and  discriminating 
terms,  the  supremacy  of  the  clergy  in  all  religious  mat- 
ters. "  There  are  two  powers  which  rule  the  world, 

1  The  letter  of  Gelasius  to  Euphemius  of  Constantinople  is  a  model  of 
that  haughty  humility  which  became  the  ordinary  language  of  the  Roman 
bishops.    Euphemius  had  written,  that  by  condescension  and  the  best  dis- 
position Gelasius  could  restore  concord  ("  annectis  condescendibilem  me  et 
optima  dispositione  revorare  posse  concordiam " ).  —  "Do  you  call  it  con- 
descension to  admit  among  true  bishops  the  names  of  heretics  and  excom- 
municated persons,  and  of  those  who  communicate  with  them  and  their 
successors?     Is  not  this,  instead  of  descending  like  our  Lord  from  heaven 
to  redeem,  to  plunge  ourselves  into  hell  ?  "    "  Hoc  non  est  condescendere 
ad  subveniendum,  sed  evidenter  in  inferum  demergi."    He  summons  Euphe- 
mius to  meet  him  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  in  the  presence  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  decide  whether  his  austereness  and  asperity  is  not  truly  apostolic. 
—  Epist.  1. 

2  "  Te  sicut  Romae  natus,  Romanum  principem,  amo,  colo,  suscipio.1'  — 
Ad  Anastas.,  A.D.  493. 


CHAP.  I.  POPE  ANASTASIUS.  349 

the  Imperial  and  the  Pontifical.  You  are  the  sov- 
ereign of  the  human  race,  but  you  bow  your  neck 
to  those  who  preside  over  things  divine. l  The 
priesthood  is  the  greater  of  the  two  powers ;  it  has 
to  render  an  account  in  the  last  day  for  the  acts  of 
kings."  2 

Pope  Anastasius  II.,  the  successor  of  Gelasius,  spoke 
a  milder,  more  conciliatory,  even  more  suppli-  Pope  Anas- 

TT       i          111        i         i  tasius. 

ant  language.  He  dared  to  doubt  the  damna-  NOV.  24, 496. 
tion  of  a  bishop  excommunicated  by  the  see  of  Rome : 
— "  Felix  and  Acacius  are  now  both  before  a  higher 
tribunal ;  leave  them  to  that  unerring  judgment." 3 
He  would  have  the  name  of  Acacius  passed  over  in 

1  Gelasius  refers  to  the  authoritative  example  of  Melchisedek,  a  type  in- 
terpreted with  curious  variation  during  the  Papal  history.    "  In  the  oldest 
times  Melchisedek  was  priest  and  king.    The  devil,  in  imitation  of  this 
holy  example,  induced  the  emperor  to  assume   the  supreme  pontificate. 
But  after  Christianity  had  revealed  the  truth  to  the  world,  the  union  of  the 
two  powers  ceased  to  be  lawful.    Neither  did  the  emperor  usurp  the  pon- 
tifical, nor  the  pontiff  the  imperial  power.     Christ,  mindful  of  human 
frailty,  has  separated  forever  the  two  offices,  leaving  the  emperors  depend- 
ent on  the  pontiffs  for  their  everlasting  salvation,  the  pontiffs  dependent  on 
the  emperors  for  the  administration  of  all  temporal  affairs.    So  the  ministers 
of  God  do  not  entangle  themselves  in  secular  business ;  secular  men  do  not 
intrude  into  things  divine."    Pass  over  eight  or  nine  centuries,  and  hear 
Innocent  IV. ;  we  give  the  pregnant  Latin :  "  Dominus  enim  Jehsus  Christ- 
ns    .    .    .    secundum  ordinem  Melchisedek,  verus  rex  et  verus  sacerdcs 
existens,  quemadmodum  patenter  ostendit,  nunc  utendo  pro  hominibus 
honorificentia  regiae  majestatis,  nunc  exequendo  pro  illis  dignitatem  pon- 
tificii  apud  Patrem,  in  apostolica  sede  non  solum  pontificatum,  sed  et  re- 
galem  constituit  monarchatum,  beato  Petro  ej  usque  successoribus  terreni 
simul  et  coelestis  imperii  concessos  habemus." — Apud  Hoefler.  Albert  von 
Beham,  p.  88.  Stuttgard,  1847. 

2  "  Quando  etiam  pro  ipsis  regibus  domino  in  divino  reddituri  sunt  ex- 
amine rationem."  — Ad  Anastas.,  Mansi,  vii. 

8  "  Nanique  et  predecessor  noster  Papa  Felix,  et  etiam  Acacius  illic  pro- 
culdubio  sunt:  ubi  unusquisque  sub  tanto  judice  non  potest  perdere  sui 
meriti  qualitatem." — Anastas.  Epist.  A.D.  496.  This  letter  was  sent  to 
Constantinople  by  two  bishops,  Cresconius  of  Todi  and  Gennanus  of  Capua, 
with  private  instructions,  not  recorded  in  history. 


350  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

silence,  quietly  dropped,  rather  than  publicly  expunged 
from  the  diptychs.  This  degenerate  successor  of  St. 
Peter  is  not  admitted  to  the  rank  of  a  saint.  The 
Pontifical  book  (its  authority  on  this  point  is  indig- 
nantly repudiated)  accuses  Anastasius  of  having  com- 
municated with  a  deacon  of  Thessalonica,  who  had 
kept  up  communion  with  Acacius ;  and  of  having 
NOT.  19, 498.  entertained  secret  designs  of  restoring  the 
name  of  Acacius  in  the  services  of  the  Church.1  His 
death,  according  to  Baronius,  his  sudden  death  by  the 
manifest  hand  of  God,  destroyed  altogether  these  hopes 
of  peace.  But  how  deep  and  lasting  was  the  tradition 
of  detestation  against  this  meek  renegade  to  papal  au- 
thority, may  be  supposed  by  its  survival  for  at  least 
nine  centuries.  Dante  beholds  in  hell  the  unhappy 
Anastasius,  condemned  forever  for  his  leniency  to  the 
heresy  of  Constantinople.2 

On  the  death  of  Pope  Anastasius,  the  contested  elec- 
Symmachua.  tion  for  the  pontificate  between  Symmachus>, 
a  convert  from  paganism,8  and  Lauren ti us,  was  c\a<- 
perated  by  these  divergences  of  opinion  on  the  schism 
with  the  East.  Festus,  the  legate  of  Anastasius,  the 
deceased  Pope,  at  Constantinople,  the  bearer,  as  it  was 

1  "  Revocare  Acacinm"  — so  I  translate  the  words — as  Acacius  had  long 
been  dead. — Lib.  Pontif.,  Vit  Anastas. 

2  "  E  quivi  per  1'  orribile  soperchio 

Del  puzzo,  che  '1  profondo  abisso  gttta 

Ci  raccostammo  dietro  ad  un  coperchio 

D'  un  grand'  avello,  ov'  io  vidi  una  scritta, 

Che  diceva :  Anastagio  Papa  guardo, 

Lo  qual  trasse  Fotino  della  via  dritta." 

Fotinus  is  said  to  have  been  the  Deacon  of  Thessalonica. 

8  "Catholica  fides,  quam  in  sede  beati  Petri,  veniens  ex  paganitate, 
Buscepi."  —  Epist.  ad  Anastas.  The  date  of  this  is  uncertain.  Was  he 
a  son  or  descendant  of  the  famous  Symmachus?  The  latter  is  more 
probable. 


CHAP.  I.  DEATH  OF  POPE  ANASTASIUS.  351 

supposed,  of  conciliatory  terms  obtained  by  the  con- 
cessions of  the  Pope,  on  his  return  to  Rome,  threw 
himself  as  a  violent  partisan  into  the  cause  of  Lau- 
rentius.  The  Emperor  Anastasius  himself,  either  in 
private  letters  to  his  adherents  in  Rome  or  in  some 
public  document,  accused  the  successful  Symmachus, 
who,  by  the  decision  of  King  Theodoric,  had  obtained 
the  throne,1  as  a  Manichean  ;  and  as  having  audacious- 
ly conspired  with  the  Senate  of  Rome  (a  singular 
Council  for  the  Pope)  to  excommunicate  the  Emperor. 
The  sovereign  of  the  East  inflexibly  withheld  the  cus- 
tomary letters  of  gratulation  on  the  accession  of  Sym- 
machus. The  apologetic  invective  of  Symmachus  to 
the  Emperor  is  in  the  tone  of  fearless  hostility.  He 
retorts  against  the  Eutychian  the  odious  charge  of 
Manicheism.  He  denies  the  excommunication  of  the 
Emperor  Anastasius ;  Acacius  only  was  excommuni- 
cated. Yet  he  leaves  him  to  the  inevitable  conclusion 
that  all  who  were  in  communion  with  the  excommuni- 
cate must  share  their  doom.2  Anastasius  is  arraigned 
as  departing  from  his  boasted  neutrality  only  against 
the  Catholics.  The  unyielding,  almost  turbulent  resist- 
ance of  the  Roman  party  in  Constantinople  is  justified 
by  the  aggressions  assumed  to  be  entirely  on  the  part 
of  the  tyrannical  Emperor.  Peace  between  two  such 
opponents  was  not  likely  to  make  much  prog-  *•»•  498-514. 
ress.  Throughout  the  pontificate  of  Symmachus,  the 
Roman  faction  in  the  East  kept  up  that  fierce  and 
tumultuous,  or  more  secret  and  brooding  opposition, 
which  lasted  till  the  death  of  Anastasius.  Symmachus 
may  have  heard  the  first  tidings  of  the  orthodox  revolt 

1  See  on,  under  the-  reign  of  Theodoric,  the  elevation,  struggle,  and  final 
istablishment  of  Symmachus. 
8  Between  499-512.    Baroniua  places  it  503. 


3 "2  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

of  Vitalianus ;  his  successor  Hormisdas  reaped  the 
fruits  of  the  humiliation  of  Anastasius,  followed  in  due 
time  by  the  reconciliation  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches.1 

i  See  on,  under  the  reign  of  Theodoric. 


CHAP.  H.  PROGRESS  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  353 


CHAPTER    II. 

CONVERSION  OF  THE  TEUTONIC  RACES. 

CHRISTIANITY  within  the  Roman  Empire  might 
seem  endangered  in  its  vital  existence  by  these  un- 
genial  inward  dissensions.  Its  lofty  assertions  that  it 
came  down  from  heaven  as  a  religion  of  peace  —  of 
peace  to  the  individual  heart  of  man,  as  reconciling 
it  with  God,  and  instilling  the  serene  hope  of  another 
life  —  of  peace  which  should  incorporate  mankind  in 
one  harmonious  brotherhood,  the  type  and  preestab- 
lishment  of  the  sorrowless  and  strifeless  state  of  beati- 
tude—  might  appear  utterly  belied  by  the  claims  of 
conflicting  doctrines  on  the  belief,  all  declared  to  be 
essential  to  salvation,  and  the  animosities  and  bloody 
quarrels  which  desolated  Christian  cities.  Anathema 
instead  of  benediction  had  almost  become  the  general 
language  of  the  Church.  Religious  wars,  at  least  rare 
in  the  pagan  state  of  society,  seemed  now  a  new  and 
perpetual  source  of  human  misery  —  a  cause  and  a 
sign  of  the  weakness  and  decay,  and  so  of  the  inevi- 
table dissolution,  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

But  Christianity  had  sunk  into  depths  of  the  human 
heart,  unmoved  by  these  tumults,  which  so  fiercely 
agitated  the  surface  of  the  Christian  world.  Far  be- 
low, less  observed,  less  visible  in  its  mode  of  operation, 
though  manifest  in  its  effects,  was  that  profound  con- 
VOL.  i.  23 


354  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH 

viction  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  that  infelt  sense 
of  its  blessings,  which  enabled  it  to  pursue  its  course 
of  conversion  throughout  the  world,  to  bring  the  Ro- 
man mind  more  completely  under  subjection,  and  one 
by  one  to  subdue  the  barbarian  tribes  which  began  to 
overspread  and  mingle  with  the  Greek  and  Latin 
population  of  the  Empire.  For  Christianity  had  that 
within  it,  which  overawed,  captivated,  enthralled  the 
innate  or  at  least  universal  religiousness  of  man- 
kind ;  that  which  was  sufficiently  simple  to  arrest  by 
its  grandeur  the  ruder  barbarian,  while,  by  its  deeper 
mysteries,  it  led  on  the  philosophic  and  reflective  mind 
through  unending  regions  of  contemplation.  It  had 
its  one  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  universe,  one  God, 
one  Redeemer,  one  Spirit,  under  which  the  ancient 
polytheism  subsided  into  a  subordinate  hierarchy  of 
intermediate  beings,  which  kept  the  imagination  in 
play,  and  left  undisturbed  almost  all  the  hereditary 
superstitions  of  each  race.  It  satisfied  that  yearning 
after  the  invisible,  which  seems  inseparable  from  our 
nature,  the  fears  and  hopes  which  more  or  less  vaguely 
have  shadowed  out  some  future  being,  the  fears  of 
retribution  appeased  by  the  promises  of  pardon,  the 
hope  of  beatitude  by  its  presentiments  of  peace.  It 
had  its  exquisite  goodness,  which  appealed  to  the  in- 
delible moral  sense  of  mankind,  to  the  best  affections 
of  his  being ;  it  had  that  equality  as  to  religious  privi- 
leges, duties,  and  advantages,  to  which  it  drew  up  all 
ranks  and  classes,  and  both  sexes  (slaves  and  females 
being  alike  with  others  under  the  divine  care),  and  the 
abolition,  so  far,  of  the  ordinary  castes  and  divisions 
of  men ;  with  the  substitution  of  the  one  distinction, 
the  clergy  and  the  laity,  and  perhaps  also  that  of  the 


CHAP.  II.  CONVERSION  OF  GERMANS.  355 

ordinary  Christian  and  the  monk,  who  aspired  to  what 
was  asserted  and  believed  to  be  a  higher  Christianity. 
All  this  was,  in  various  degrees,  at  once  the  manifest 
sign  of  its  divinity,  and  the  secret  of  its  gradual  sub- 
jugation of  nations  at  such  different  stages  of  civiliza- 
tion. It  prepared  or  found  ready  the  belief  in  those 
miraculous  powers,  which  it  still  constantly  declared 
itself  to  possess ;  and  made  belief  not  merely  prompt 
to  accept,  but  creative  of,  wonder,  and  of  perpetual 
preterhuman  interference.  Some  special  causes  will 
appear,  which  seemed  peculiarly  to  propitiate  certain 
races  towards  Christianity,  while  their  distinctive  char- 
acter reacted  on  their  own  Christianity,  and  through 
them  perhaps  on  that  of  the  world. 

We  are  not  at  present  advanced  beyond  the  period 
when  Christianity  was  in  general  content  (this  indeed 
gave  it  full  occupation)  to  await  the  settle-  conyersion 
ment  of  the  Northern  tribes,  if  not  within  the  wUhhTthe" 
pale,  at  least  upon  the  frontiers  of  the  Em-  pire' 
pire :  it  had  not  yet  been  emboldened  to  seek  them  out 
in  their  own  native  forests  or  morasses.  But  it  was 
a  surprising  spectacle  to  behold  the  Teutonic  nations 
melting  gradually  into  the  general  mass  of  Christian 
worshippers.  In  every  other  respect  they  are  still  dis- 
tinct races.  The  conquering  Ostrogoth  or  Visigoth, 
the  Vandal,  the  Burgundian,  the  Frank,  stand  apart 
from  the  subjugated  Roman  population,  as  an  armed 
or  territorial  aristocracy.  They  maintain,  in  great 
part  at  least,  their  laws,  their  language,  their  habits, 
their  character ;  in  religion  alone  they  are  blended  into 
one  society,  constitute  one  church,  worship  at  the  same 
altar,  and  render  allegiance  to  the  same  hierarchy. 
This  is  the  single  bond  of  their  common  humanity ; 


356  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

and  so  long  as  the  superior  Roman  civilization  enabled 
the  Latins  to  retain  exclusively  the  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions, they  might  appear  to  have  retreated  from  the 
civil  power,  which  required  more  strenuous  and  robust 
hands  to  wield  it,  to  this  no  less  extensive  and  impor- 
tant influence  of  opinion  ;  and  thus  held  in  suspense 
the  trembling  balance  of  authority.  They  were  no 
longer  the  sovereigns  and  patricians,  but  they  were 
still  the  pontiffs  and  priests  in  the  new  order  of  society. 
There  might  appear  in  the  Teutonic  religious  char- 
acter  a  depth,  seriousness,  and  tendency  to 


the  mysterious,  congenial  to  Christianity, 
which  would  prepare  them  to  receive  the  Gospel.  The 
Grecian  polytheist  was  often  driven  into  Christianity 
by  the  utter  void  in  his  religion,  and  by  the  incon- 
gruity of  its  poetic  anthropomorphism  with  the  prog- 
ress of  his  discursive  reason,  as  well  as  by  his  weari- 
ness with  his  unsatisfactory  and  exhausted  philosophy: 
the  Roman  was  commanded  by  its  high  moral  tone 
and  vigor  of  character.  But  each  had  to  abandon 
temples,  rites,  diversions,  literature,  which  had  the 
strongest  hold  on  his  habits  and  character,  and  so  utterly 
incongruous  with  the  primitive  Gospel,  that  until  Chris- 
tianity made  some  steps  towards  the  old  religion  by 
the  splendor  of  its  ceremonial,  and  the  incipient  pagan- 
izing, not  of  its  creed,  but  of  its  popular  belief,  there 
were  powerful  countervailing  tendencies  to  keep  him 
back  from  the  new  faith.  And  when  the  Greek 
entered  into  the  Church,  he  was  not  content  with- 
out exercising  the  quickness  of  his  intelligence,  and 
the  versatilities  of  his  language  on  his  creed,  without 
analyzing,  discussing,  defining  everything.  Or  by  in- 
truding that  higher  part  of  his  philosophy,  which  best 


CHAP.  II.  TEUTONIC  RELIGION.  357 

assimilated  with  Christianity,  he  either  philosophized 
Christianity,  or  for  a  time,  as  under  the  Neo-Platonists 
and  Julian,  set  up  a  partially  Christianized  philosophy 
as  a  new  and  rival  religion.  The  inveterate  corrup- 
tion of  Roman  manners  confined  that  vigorous  Chris- 
tian morality,  its  strongest  commendation  to  the  Roman 
mind,  at  first  within  the  chosen  few  who  were  not 
utterly  abased  by  licentiousness  or  by  servility:  and 
even  with  them  in  large  part  it  was  obedience  to  civil 
authority,  respect  for  established  law,  perhaps  in  many 
a  kind  of  sympathy  with  the  lofty  and  independent 
sacerdotal  dignity,  the  sole  representative  of  old  Roman 
freedom,  which  contributed  to  Christianize  the  Latin 
world. 

How  much  more  suited  were  some  parts  of  the 
Teutonic  character  to  harmonize  at  first  with  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  keep  the  proselytes  in  submission  to 
the  authority  of  its  instructors  in  these  sublime  truths ; 
at  the  same  time  to  invigorate  the  Church  by  the 
infusion  of  its  own  strength  and  independence  of 
thought  and  action,  as  well  as  to  barbarize  it  with 
that  ferocity  which  causes,  is  increased  by,  and  main- 
tains, the  foreign  conquests  of  ruder  over  Teutonic 
more  polished  races !  Already  the  German  reUglon 
had  the  conception  of  an  illimitable  Deity,  towards 
whom  he  looked  with  solemn  and  reverential  awe. 
Tacitus  might  seem  to  speak  the  language  of  a  Chris- 
tian Father,  almost  of  a  Jewish  prophet.  Their  gods 
could  not  be  confined  within  walls,  and  it  was  degrada- 
tion to  these  vast  unseen  powers  to  represent  them 
under  the  human  form.  Reverential  awe  alone  could 
contemplate  that  mysterious  being  which  they  called 
divinity.1  These  deities,  or  this  one  Supreme,  were 
l  "  Caeterum  non  cohibere  parietibus  Decs,  neque  in  ullam  humani  oris 


358  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

shrouded  in  the  untrodden,  impenetrable  forest.  Such 
seems  to  have  been  the  sublime  conception  above,  if 
not  anterior  to,  what  may  be  called  the  mythology  of 
Teutonic  religion.  This  mythology  was  the  same, 
only  in  its  elemental  form,  throughout  the  German 
tribes,  with  that  which,  having  passed  through  more 
than  one  race  of  poets,  grew  into  the  Eddas  of  Scan- 
dinavia. Vestiges  of  this  close  relationship  are  traced 
in  the  language,  in  the  mythic  conceptions,  and  in  the 
superstitions  of  all  the  Teutonic  tribes.  Certain  relig- 
ious forms  and  words  are  common  to  all  the  races  of 
Teutonic  descent.1  In  every  dialect  appear  kindred  or 
derivative  terms  for  the  deity,  for  sacrifice,  for  temples, 
and  for  the  priesthood.  This  mythic  religion  was  in 
some  points  a  nature-worship,  though  there  might  have 
existed,  as  has  been  said,  something  more  ancient,  and 
superior  to  the  worship  of  the  visible  and  impersonated 
powers  or  energies  of  the  material  world.  The  Romans 
discovered,  not  without  wonder,  that  the  supreme  deity 
of  the  actual  German  worship  was  not  invested  in  the 
attributes  of  their  Jove,  but  rather  of  Mercury.2  There 
woden.  is  no  doubt  that  Woden  was  the  divinity  to 
whom  they  assigned  this  name,  a  name  which,  in  its 
various  forms,  (it  became  at  length  Odin,)  is  common 
to  the  Goths,  Lombai-ds,  Saxons,  Frisians,  and  other 
tribes.  In  its  primitive  conception,  if  any  of  these 
conceptions  were  clear  and  distinct,  Woden  appears  to 
have  been  the  all-mighty,  all-permeating  Spirit  —  the 
Mind,  the  primal  mover  of  things,  the  all-Wise,  the 

speciem  adsimilare  ex  magnitudine  coelestium  arbitrantur,  Deorumque  no- 
niiuibus  appellant  secretum  illud  quod  sola  reverentiil  viclent."  —  Tac.  Ger- 
man, ix. 

1  Grimm,  Deutsche  Mythologie,  Einleitung,  pp.  9-11  (2d  edit.).  The 
n  hole  large  volume  is  a  minute  and  laborious  commentary  on  this  axiom. 

8  "  Deum  maxime  Mercurium  colunt"  —  Tac.  Germ.  ix. 


CHAP.  II.  TEUTONIC  RELIGION.  359 

God  of  speech  and  of  knowledge.1  But  with  a  warlike 
people,  the  supreme  deity  could  not  but  be  a  god  of 
battle,  the  giver  of  victory.  He  possessed  therefore 
the  attributes  of  Mars  blended  with  those  of  Mercury.2 
The  conduct  or  the  reception  of  departed  spirits,  which 
belonged  to  the  pagan  Mercury,  may  have  been  one 
function  which  led  to  his  identification  with  the  Teu- 
tonic Woden.  Already,  no  doubt,  their  world  of  the 
dead  was  a  rude  Valhalla. 

In  the  earlier  belief,  the  Thunderer,  with  the  sun, 
the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the  earth,  the  great  objects  of 
nature-worship,  held  only  the  second  place.  The  Her- 
thus  of  Tacitus  was  doubtless  Hertha,  the  mother 
earth,  or  impersonated  nature,  of  which  he  describes 
the  worship  in  language  singularly  coincident  with 
that  of  the  Berecynthian  goddess  of  Phrygia.3 

1  "  Wodan  sane  quern  adjecta  litera  Gwodan  dixerunt,  ipse  est  qui  apud 
Romanes  Mercurius  dicitur,  et  ab  universis  Germanise  gentibus  ut  Deus 
adoratur."  —  Paul.  Diacon.  i.  9.      See  also  Jonas  Bobbiens.  Vit.  Bonifac. 
('Dies  Mercurii  became  Wodan's  day,  —  Wednesday. ^    Compare  Grimm, 
p.  11C,  Grimm,  pp.  108,  &c.,  and  the  whole  article  Wuotan,  which  hS  closes 
with  the  following  observation :  "  Aber  noch  zu  einen  andern  Betrachtung 
darf  die  hohe  stelle  fuhren,  welche  die  Germanen  ihrem  Wuotan  anweisen. 
Der  Monotheismus  ist  etwas  so  nothwendiges  und  wesentliches,  das  fast 
alle  Heiden  in  ihrer  Gutter  bunten  Gewimmel,  bewusset  oder  unbewusset, 
darauf  ausgehn,  einen  obersten  Gott  anzuerkennen,  der  schon  die  Eigen- 
schaften  aller  iibrigen  in  sich  tragt,  so  dass  diese  nur  als  seine  Einfliisse, 
verjiingenden  und  erfrischungen,  zu  betrachten  sind.     Daraus  erklart  sich 
wie  einzelne  Eigenheiten  bald  einem  bald  diesem  einzelnen  Gott  dargelegt 
werden,  und  warum  die  hochste  Macht,  nach  Verschiedenheit  der  Viilker 
auf  den  einen  oder  den  andern  derselben  fallt.' ' 

2  Paulus  Diacon.,  loc.  cit.    He  is  called  Sigvodr  (Siegvater)  in  the  Edda. 
—  Grimm,  p.  122. 

8  After  recounting  the  tribes  who  worship  this  goddess,  he  proceeds  • 
"  In  commune  Herthum,  id  est,  Terrain  matrem  colunt,  eamqtie  intervenire 
rebus  hominum,  invehi  populis  arbitrantur.  Est  in  insula  Oceani  castum 
nemus,  dicatum  in  eo  vehiculum,  veste  contectum,  attingere  uni  sacerdoti 
concessum.  Is  adesse  penetrali  Deam  intelligit,  vectamque  bobus  feminis 
multa  cum  veneratione  prosequitur.  Laeti  tune  dies,  festa  loca,  qusecunque 
adventu  hospitioque  dignatur.  Non  anna  suinunt,  clausum  omne  ferrum, 


360  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

There  were  other  religious  usages  —  most  absolutely 
repugnant  to  Christianity,  and  demanding,  as  it  were, 
Human  uer  m^^  intervention,  —  so  universal  as  to 
•acnfioes.  imply  a  closer  relationship  than  that  of  un- 
connected races,  which  resemble  each  other  from 
being  in  the  same  state  of  civilization.  From  the 
borders  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  the  shores  of  the 
Baltic,  from  the  age  of  Tacitus  to  that  of  the  Northern 
Chroniclers,  human  sacrifices  appeased  the  gods,  or 
rewarded  them  for  the  victories  which  they  had  be- 
stowed upon  their  worshippers.  The  supreme  god, 
Woden,  the  Mercury  of  Tacitus,  was  propitiated  by 
human  victims.  The  tribunes  and  principal  centurions 
in  the  army  of  Varus  were  slam  on  these  horrid  altars.1 
The  Goths  sacrificed  their  captives  to  the  god  of  wur.2 
The  Greek  historian  of  the  age  of  Justinian  imputes 

pax  et  quies  tune  tantum  nota,  tune  tantiim  amata,  donee  idem  sacerdoa 
satiatam  conversatione  mortalium  Deam  templo  reddit;  in  ox  vehiculum  et 
vestes,  et,  si  credere  velis,  numen  ipsum  secreto  lacu  abluitur.  Servi  min- 
istrant)  quos  statim  idem  lacus  haurit.  Arcanus  bine  terror,  sanctaque 
ignorantia,  quid  sit  illud  quod  tantum  perituri  vident."  —  Tacit.  Gtrm.  xL 
Contrast  and  compare  these  secret  and  awful  rites  (and  their  "  truce  of 
God")  with  Lucretius, — 

Quo  nunc  insigni  per  magnas  preedita  terras 
Horrifice  fertur  divine  Matris  imago  .  .  . 

Ergo  cum  primum  magnas  invecta  per  urbes 
Magnificat  tacita  mortales  muta  salute  : 
£re  atqne  argento  sternunt  iter  orane  riarum , 
Largificl  stipe  donantee,  ninguntque  rosarum 
Floribus,  umbrantes  Matrem  comitumque  caterras. 

ii.  597  et  stq. 

(Also  Ovid.  Fasti,  iv.  337.)  Grimm,  in  another  part  of  his  book,  illustrates 
all  this  by  a  circumstance  related  during  the  persecution  of  the  Christian 
Goths  by  Athanaric  iSozom.  H.  E.  vi.  37.)  An  image  on  a  wagon  was 
led  in  procession  round  the  tents  of  the  people ;  all  who  refused  to  worship 
and  make  their  offerings  to  this  Gothic  deity  were  burned  alive  in  tlu-ir 
tents. 

1  Tac.  Germ.  ix.  and  xxxix.    Ann.  i.  81.    The  Hermanduri  and  Catti 
are  particularly  mentioned  as  slaying  human  victims. 

2  Jornandes,  86. 


CHAP.  II.  ANIMAL    SACRIFICES.  361 

the  same  ferocious  usage  to  the  Thuletes  (the  Scan- 
dinavians), and  to  the  Heruli ; l  Sidonius  Apollinarius 
to  the  Saxons.2  The  Frisian  law  denounces  not  merely 
the  penalty  of  death,  but  describes  as  an  immolation  to 
the  gods  the  punishment  of  one  who  violates  a  temple. 
At  a  later  period  St.  Boniface  charges  some  of  his 
Christian  converts  with  the  sale  of  captives  to  the 
pagans  for  the  purpose  of  sacrifice.3  At  the  great 
temple  at  Upsala  every  kind  of  animal  was  suspended 
in  sacrifice :  seventy-two  dogs  and  men,  mingled  to- 
gether, were  counted  on  one  occasion.4  The  northern 
poetry  contains  many  vestiges  of  these  human  immola- 
tions. The  Northmen  are  said  by  Dithmar  of  Merse- 
burg  to  have  sacrificed  every  year,  about  Christmas, 
ninety-nine  men  in  a  sacred  place  in  Sea-land.  This 
execrable  custom  was  suppressed  by  the  Em-  A.P.  926. 
peror  Henry  I.  the  Fowler.6 

Among  animals  the  horse  was  the  chosen  victim  of 
all  the  Teutonic  tribes.     It  was  offered  in  the  Animal 
age  of  Tacitus  in  the  German  forests,  which  sacrififtes- 
had  been  just  penetrated  by  the  Roman  arms,  and, 
according  to  the  Sagas,  by  the  yet  unconverted  Danes 
and  Swedes. 

Throughout  the  wide  regions  occupied  by  the  Teu- 
tons the  sacred  grove  was  the  sanctuary  of  Holy 
the   deity.      The  Romans   could   not   tread  gro™ 

1  Procop.  de  Bell.  Gothic,  ii.  14,  ii.  15. 

2  Epist.  viii.  5. 

8  "  Quod  quidem  ex  fidelibus  ad  immolandum  paganis  sua  venundent 
mancipia."  — Epist.  xxv. 

4  "  Ita  etiam  canes,  qui  pendent  cum  hominibus,  quorum  corpora  mixta 
luspensa,  narravit  mihi  quidam  Christianorum  se  septuaginta  duo  vidisse." 

6  Miiller,  Saga  Bibliothek.  ii.  560,  v.  93.  See  also,  in  Mr.  Thorpe's 
Mythology  of  Scandinavia,  a  copious  list  of  references  on  the  sanctity  of 
groves,  vol.  i.  p.  255  (note) ;  on  temples,  p.  259 ;  on  human  sacrifices,  p.  264. 


862  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  '  BOOK  III. 

without  awe  these  dark  dwelling-places  of  the  gods  of 
their  enemies  ;  they  were  astonished  at  the  absence  of 
all  images,  and  perhaps  did  not  clearly  distinguish  the 
shapeless  symbols  which  were  set  up  in  some  places, 
from  the  aged  trunks,  which  were  also  the  objects  of 
worship.  The  reverence  for  these  hallowed  places,  the 
adoration  of  certain  trees,  survived  the  introduction  of 
Christianity.  The  early  missionaries  and  the  local 
councils  are  full  of  denunciations  against  this  inveterate 
heathen  practice.  We  shall  behold  St.  Boniface  and 
others,  as  their  crowning  triumph,  daring  to  hew  down 
stately  trees,  the  objects  of  the  veneration  of  ages,  and 
the  barbarians  standing  around,  awaiting  the  event  in 
sullen  suspense,  and  leaving  their  gods,  as  it  were,  on 
this  last  trial.  If  they  were  gods,  would  they  endure 
this  contumelious  sacrilege  ? 

The  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  in 
another  life,  though  not  perhaps  so  distinct,  or  con- 
nected with  the  transmigration  of  the  soul,  as  in  Gaul, 
yet  seems  to  have  been  universal,  dominant ;  as  far  as 
warlike  contempt  of  death,  an  active  and  influential 
faith.  But  it  was  to  most  men  vague,  dreary,  dismal, 
—  the  Nifleheim,  the  home  of  clouds  and  darkness,  was 
the  common  lot ;  the  Valhalla  that  alone  of  the  noble, 
and  of  select  and  distinguished  warriors. 

The  priesthood  were  held  in  the  same  reverence 
throughout  Germany.  It  was  not  an  organized  and 
Priesthood,  powerful  hierarchy,  or  a  separate  caste,  like 
that  of  the  Druids  in  Gaul  and  Britain ; ]  but  the 

1  Caesar  says  of  the  Germans,  "  Neque  Druides  habent  qui  rebus  divinis 
pnesint,  neque  sacrifices  student." —  B.  G.  vi.  21.  This,  though  not  strictly 
true,  is  true  in  the  sense  in  which  Csesar  wrote,  as  contrasted  with  the  hier- 
trchy  of  Gaul.  — "  Ungleich  betrachtlicher  war  in  Zahl  und  ausbildung 
das  celtische  Priesterthum."  —  Grimm. 


CHAP.  II  PRIESTHOOD.  363 

priests  officiated  in  and  presided  over  the  sacred  cere- 
monials of  sacrifice  and  worship,  and  administered  jus- 
tice. In  the  early  German  wars,  when  Rome  was,  as 
it  were,  invading  the  sanctuaries  of  the  Teutonic 
deities,  the  priesthood  appear  as  a  kind  of  officers  of  the 
god  of  war,  enforcing  discipline,  branding  cowardice, 
and  inflicting  punishment,  which  the  free  German  spirit 
would  endure  only  from  those  who  bore  a  divine  com- 
mission.1 In  all  affairs  of  public  concern  —  the  priest ; 
in  private  affairs  —  the  head  of  the  family,  interpreted 
the  lots  by  which  the  gods  rendered  their  oracles.2 
The  priest  or  the  king  might  alone  harness  the  sacred 
horses;  the  allusions  to  the  priesthood  in  the  late 
writers  on  the  various  conquering  tribes,  are  not  very 
frequent,  but  sufficient  to  show  that  they  had  that  ven- 
eration inseparable  from  the  character  of  persons  who 
performed  sacrifices,  consulted  the  gods,  and  by  aus- 
pices, or  other  modes  of  divination,  predicted  victory  or 
disaster.3  Prophetic  women  characterize  the  Teutonic 
faith  in  all  its  numerous  branches.  The  Velleda  of 
Tacitus,  who  ruled  like  a  Queen,  and  was  worshipped 
almost  as  a  goddess,  is  the  ancestress  of  the  Nomas  of 
the  poetic  Sagas.4  In  the  East  the  gift  of  prophecy 

1  •'  Cseterum  neque  animadvertere,  neque  vincire,  nee  verberare  quidem, 
nisi  sacerdotibus  permissum;   non  quasi  in  poenam,  nee  ducis  jiissu,  sed 
velut  Deo  imperante,  quern  adesse  bellantibus  credunt."  —  Tacit.  Germ.  vii. 

2  Tac.  Germ.  x.  and  xi.    A  priest  of  the  Catti  was  led  in  the  triumph  of 
G«rmanicus.  —  Strabo. 

8  Even  Grimm's  industry  is  baffled  by  the  question  of  the  power  of  the 
priesthood  in  Germany :  "  Aus  der  folgenden  zeit  und  bis  zur  einfiihrung 
des  Christenthums,  haben  wir  fast  gar  keine  kunde  weiter  wie  es  sich  in 
innern  Deutschland  mit  dem  priestern  verhielt:  ihr  dasein  folgt  aus  den 
der  tempel  und  opfer." — p.  61.  Among  the  Anglo-Saxons  the  priests 
might  not  bear  arms,  or  ride,  except  on  a  mare.  —  Bede,  Hist.  Ecc.  ii.  13. 

4  Tac.  Germ.  viii.  Hist.  iv.  61.  "  Ea  virgo,  nationis  Bructerae,  late 
imperitabat.  Vetere  apud  Gennanos  more,  quo  plerasque  fceminarum 
fatidicas,  et  augescente  superstitione,  arbitrantur  Deas."  Compare  iv.  65, 
v.  24,  Grimm,  Art.  Weise  Fraucn. 


364  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  UL 

is  sometimes,  but  rarely,  vouchsafed  to  females ;  in 
Greece  it  was  equally  shared  by  both  sexes  ;  the  seer 
or  prophet  is  the  exception  in  the  Northern  my- 
thology. This  reverence  for  women,  especially  for 
sacred  virgins,  no  doubt  prepared  them  to  receive 
one  article  of  the  new  religious  faith,  which  had 
already  begun  to  grow  towards  its  later  all-absorbing 
importance  ;  while  it  harmonized  with  the  general  ten- 
dency of  Christian  doctrine  to  elevate  the  female  sex. 

Such  was  the  general  character  of  the  Teutonic  re- 
ligion, disposed  to  the  dark,  the  awful,  the  mysterious, 
with  a  profound  belief  in  prophetic  revelations,  and  a 
priesthood  accustomed  to  act  in  a  judicial,  as  well  as  in 
Teuton*  a  religious  capacity.  And  with  such  religious 

encounter  °.  i    i     i  •  /•  i  i    /•     i 

Christianity,  conceptions,  and  habits  of  thought  and  feel- 
ing, the  Northern  tribes,  first  on  the  frontiers,  after- 
wards within  the  frontiers,  and  gradually  in  the  heart 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  came  into  the  presence  of 
Christianity  —  of  Christianity  now  organized  under  a 
powerful  priesthood,  a  hierarchy  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
inferior  clergy :  laying  claim  to  divine  inspiration  ;  and 
though  that  divine  inspiration  was  gathered  and  con- 
centred, as  it  were,  into  a  sacred  book  —  in  a  wider 
and  more  vague  and  indistinct  sense,  it  remained  with 
the  rulers  of  the  Church.  The  Teutonic  conqueror, 
already  expatriated  by  the  thirst  for  conquest  or  the 
aggression  of  more  martial  tribes,  by  his  migration  had 
broken  off  all  local  associations  of  sanctity ;  he  had  left 
far  behind  him  his  hallowed  grove,1  and  his  reeking 
altar ; 2  even  the  awe  of  his  primeval  forests  must  have 

1  The  Lombards  even  in  Italy  found  stately  trees  to  worship.  See  Mura- 
tori,  Dissert.  59,  especially  a  curious  quotation  about  a  holy  tree  in  the 
dukedom  of  Beuevento.  The  Gallic  Councils  ( Aries,  452 :  Tours,  597  ; 
Nantes,  658)  prohibit  the  worship  of  trees,  the  latter  of  certain  stones. 

a  Luitprand.  Leg.  L  vi.  30. 


CHAP.  II.      TEUTONS    ENCOUNTER    CHRISTIANITY.  365 

gradually  worn  away  as  he  advanced  into  the  southern 
sunshine,  and  took  possession  of  the  regular  towns  or 
the  cultivated  farms  of  his  Roman  subjects. 

The  human  sacrifices  not  merely  belonged  of  ancient 
usage  to  these  gloomy  sanctuaries :  but  even  before 
they  had  learned  the  Christian  tenet,  that  all  sacrifice 
had  ceased  with  the  one  great  sacrifice  on  the  cross, 
the  milder  manners,  which  they  could  not  but  insensi- 
bly, if  slowly,  acquire  by  intercourse  with  more  pol- 
ished nations,  would  render  such  dire  offerings  more 
and  more  unfrequent :  they  would  be  reserved  for  sig- 
nal occasions,  till  at  length  they  would  fall  into  total 
desuetude. 

In  one  respect,  in  which  the  genius  of  Christianity 
might  have  been  expected  to  clash  with  his  own  re- 
ligious notions,  Christianity  had  already  advanced 
many  steps  to  meet  the  Teuton.  The  Christian  God, 
and  even  the  gentle  Saviour  of  mankind,  had  Chrjst  a  Q^ 
become  a  God  of  battle.  The  cross,  theofbattlc- 
symbol  of  Christian  redemption,  glittered  on  the  stand- 
ards of  the  legions ;  and  every  victory,  and  every  new 
conquest,  might  encourage  the  hope  that  this  God,  the 
God  of  the  southern  people,  did  not  behold  them  with 
disfavor,  was  deserting  his  own  votaries,  and  would 
gladly  receive  and  reward  the  allegiance  of  more  manly 
and  valiant  worshippers.  Notwithstanding  the  proud 
consciousness  of  their  own  superior  prowess  as  warriors, 
the  Teutonic  conquerors  could  not  enter  into  the  do- 
minions of  Rome,  cross  the  Roman  bridges,  march 
idong  the  Roman  roads,  encamp  before  the  walled 
cities,  with  their  towers,  temples,  basilicas,  forums, 
aqueducts,  baths,  and  churches  now  aspiring  to  grand- 
eur, if  not  magnificence,  without  awe  at  the  superior 


3G6  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

intellectual  power  of  those  whom  they  had  subdued. 
Raspect  for  ^  was  natural  to  connect  this  intellectual  su- 
the  clergy,  periority  with  the  reHgion  ;  and  while  every- 
thing else,  the  civil  power,  the  ordinary  course  of 
affairs,  as  well  as  the  army,  bowed  before  them,  the 
religion  alone  stood  up,  resolute,  unyielding,  almost  un- 
disturbed. The  Christian  bishops  and  clergy  (like  the 
aged  senators  of  old,  as  they  are  described  in  the  noble 
passage  of  Livy,  awaiting  their  doom  in  the  Capitol, 
and  appalling  for  a  time  the  ruthless  Gaul  by  the  ven- 
erable majesty  of  their  dress  and  demeanor)  might 
seem  to  awe  their  conquerors  into  respect ;  and  though 
at  times,  when  the  paroxysm  of  wonder  was  broken,  as 
in  the  former  instance,  the  conquerors  might  insult  or 
even  massacre  the  objects  of  their  adoration,  still  in 
general  the  sacred  character  would  work  on  the  super- 
stitious mind  of  the  barbarian.  The  Teuton  had 
already  the  habit  of  contemplating  the  priest  as  the 
representative  of  divinity.  According  to  the  general 
feeling  of  polytheism,  acknowledging  the  gods  of  other 
tribes  or  nations,  as  well  as  his  own,  to  possess  divine 
power,  he  arrayed  the  priesthood  of  the  stranger  in  the 
same  fearfulness ;  the  mysterious  sanctity  which  dwelt 
with  the  Christian's  God  hallowed  the  Christian  bishop. 
Nor,  though  individual  priests  might  and  did  accom- 
NO  Teutonic  Pan7  tne  migratory  tribes,  does  there  appear 
priesthood.  any  Qf  ^-^  strong  sacerdotal  spirit  which  be- 
longs to  an  organized  hierarchy,  by  which  its  influence 
is  chiefly  maintained  and  established,  which  is  pledged 
to  and  supported  by  mutual  emulation,  and  by  fear  of 
the  reproach  of  treason  to  the  common  cause,  or  of 
base  abandonment  of  the  wealth,  the  power,  and  the 
credit  of  the  fraternity.  With  these  elements  then  of 


CHAP.  II.  EFFECT  OX  CHRISTIANS.  367 

faith  within  his  heart,  the  German  was  migrating  into 
the  territory  as  it  were  of  a  new  God,  and  was  encoun- 
tered everywhere  by  the  priest  of  that  God.  That 
priest  was  usually  full  of  zeal,  and,  with  all  to 
whom  his  language  was  intelligible,  of  eloquence  ;  con- 
fessedly in  all  intellectual  qualities  a  superior  being, 
and  asserting  himself  to  be  divinely  commissioned  to 
impart  the  truth  ;  seizing  every  opportunity  of  vicissi- 
tude, of  distress,  of  sickness,  of  affliction,  to  enforce 
the  power  and  goodness  of  his  God ;  himself  perhaps 
in  perfect  faith  turning  every  one  of  those  countless 
incidents,  which  to  a  barbarian  mind  was  capable  of  a 
supernatural  tinge,  into  a  manifest  miracle ;  opening  a 
new  and  more  distinct  and  terrible  hell  and  a  heaven 
of  light  and  gladness,  and  declaring  himself  to  possess 
the  keys  of  both. 

At  no  time,  under  no  circumstances,  would  Chris- 
tianity appear  more  sincere,  more  devout,  Effect  on 
more  commanding,  or  more  amiable.  As ChrisUans- 
has  always  been  observed  during  a  plague,  an  earth- 
quake, or  any  other  great  public  calamity,  men  be- 
come either  more  recklessly  godless,  or  more  profoundly 
religious  ;  so  during  the  centuries  of  danger,  disaster 
and  degradation,  which  were  those  of  barbarian  inva- 
sion and  conquest,  the  fire  must,  as  it  were,  have  been 
trying  the  spirits  of  men.  Those  who  had  no  vital  or 
rooted  religion  would  fall  off,  as  some  of  them  would 

O  ' 

assert,  from  a  God  who  showed  them  no  protection. 
These  while  free  would  waste  away  the  few  remaining 
years  or  days  of  their  wealth,  or  at  all  events  of  their 
freedom,  in  licentiousness  and  luxury  ;  if  slaves,  they 
would  sink  to  all  the  vices,  as  well  as  the  degradation 
of  slavery.  The  truly  religious,  on  the  other  hand, 


368  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

would  clasp  more  nearly  to  their  heart  the  one  remain- 
ing principle  of  consolation  and  of  dignity.  They 
would  fly  from  a  world  which  only  offered  shame  and 
misery,  to  the  hope  of  a  better  and  more  happy  state 
of  being.  Death  was  their  only  release,  but  beyond 
death,  they  were  secure,  they  were  at  peace ;  they 
would  take  refuge,  at  least  in  faith,  from  the  face  of  a 
tyrannical  master,  or  what  to  a  freeborn  Roman  was 
as  galling  and  humiliating,  a  lord  and  proprietor,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Redeemer.  They  would  flee  from 
down-trodden  servitude  on  earth  to  glory  and  beatitude 
in  heaven.  The  darker  the  calamity,  the  more  entire 
the  resignation  ;  as  wretchedness  would  be  more  ram- 
pant, so  devotion  would  be  more  devout.  The  Provin- 
cial with  his  home  desolated,  his  estate  seized,  his  fam- 
ily outraged  or  massacred  or  carried  away  into  bondage, 
would,  if  really  Christian,  consider  himself  as  taking 
up  his  cross ;  he  would  be  a  more  fervent,  as  it  were,  a 
desperate  believer.  In  the  letters  of  Sidonius  Apolli- 
naris,  we  find  the  Bishop  of  Clermont  writing  to  Ma- 
tern  us,  the  Bishop  of  Vienne,  for  the  form  of  certain 
litanies  or  rogations,  which  were  used  in  that  city  dur- 
ing an  earthquake  and  conflagration ;  he  proposes  to 
institute  the  same  solemn  ceremonies  in  apprehension 
of  the  invasion  of  the  Goths  into  Provence.  Salvian 
bitterly  reproaches  the  Roman  Gauls  with  their  passion 
for  theatric  games,  which  they  indulged  during  such 
days  of  peril  and  disaster  only  with  more  desperate  in- 
tensity. But,  even  if  the  true  Christians  in  those 
hours  of  trial  were  fewer  in  number,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  their  piety  took  a  more  vehement  and  im- 
passioned character.  It  was  the  time  for  <rreat  Chris- 
tian virtues,  as  well  as  for  more  profound  Christian  con- 


CHAP.  II.  EFFECT  ON  CHRISTIANS.  369 

solations,  virtues  which  in  some  points  would  be  strik- 
ingly congenial  to  barbaric  minds,  as  giving  a  sublime 
patience  and  serenity  in  suffering,  a  calm  contempt  of 
death.  The  Germans  would  admire  the  martyr  whom 
in  their  wantonness  they  slew,  if  that  martyr  showed 
true  Christian  tranquillity  in  his  agony.  There  was  no 
danger  which  the  better  bishops  and  clergy  would  not 
encounter  for  their  flocks ;  they  would  venture  to  con- 
front unarmed  the  fierce  warrior ;  all  the  treasures  of 
the  unplundered  churches  were  willingly  surrendered 
for  the  redemption  of  captives.  The  austerities  prac- 
tised by  some  of  the  clergy,  and  by  those  who  had 
commenced  the  monastic  life,  would  arrest  the  atten- 
tion and  inthral  the  admiration  of  barbarians,  to  whom 
self-command,  endurance,  strength  of  will,  would  ap- 
pear kindred  and  noble  qualities.  In  the  early  period, 
when  the  Germans  still  dwelt  separate  in  their  camps, 
or  in  the  ceded  settlements  within  the  frontier,  the  cap- 
tives would  be,  and  as  history  shows,  were  the  chief 
missionaries.  The  barbarians  on  the  one  hand  would 
more  and  more  feel  the  intellectual  superiority  of  their 
bond-slaves,  which  would  induce  them  to  look  favor- 
ably on  their  religion.  The  captives,  some  of  them 
bishops,  some  females  of  high  rank  and  influential 
beauty,  where  they  were  truly  Christians,  would  be 
urged  by  many  of  the  purest,  and  many  less  holy  mo- 
tives, to  convert  their  masters.  The  sacred  duty  of 
disseminating  the  Gospel,  the  principle  of  love  which 
would  impart  its  blessings  to  all  mankind  ;  the  strong 
conviction  that  they  were  rescuing  the  barbarians  from 
eternal  damnation,  the  doom  of  all  but  the  true  believ- 
ers in  Christ ;  and  so  in  the  noblest  form  the  returning 
good  for  evil,  would  conspire  with  the  pride  and  con- 

VOL.  i.  24 


LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

Eolation  of  ruling  their  rulers ;  of  maintaining  in  one 
sense  the  Roman  supremacy  over  the  minds  of  men. 
The  end  would  sanctify  all  arts,  dignify  all  humilia- 
tions ;  Christian  zeal  and  worldly  ambition  would  act 
together  in  perfect  harmony. 

Where  the  Teutonic  nations  had  penetrated  more 
Teutons  in  m*°  ^ne  midst  of  the  Roman  Empire ;  where 
of  thTjBm-  tntT  nad  settled  down,  as  they  did  succes- 
pire-  sively,  in  all  the  provinces,  as  lords  of  the 

soil,  they  would  be  more  fully  in  the  presence  and  con- 
centred influence  of  Christianity.  Themselves  with- 
out temples,  without  shrines,  without  altars,  perhaps 
without  a  priesthood,  they  would  be  daily  spectators  of 
the  lofty  and  spacious  edifices,  perhaps  the  imposing 
processions,  the  ceremonial,  which  had  already  begun 
to  assume  some  grandeur,  of  the  Christian  churches. 
If  admitted,  or  forcing  their  way  within,  or  hearing 
from  without  the  hymns  and  the  music,  the  ordinary 
ceremonial  which  they  would  witness,  and  still  more 
perhaps  the  more  solemn  mysteries  which  were  jeal- 
ously shrouded  from  their  sight,  would  lay  hold  upon 
their  unpreoccupied  religiousness,  and  offer  them  us 
almost  ready  captives  to  the  persuasive  teacher  of  these 
new  and  majestic  truths.  Their  conversion  then-fore 
was  more  speedy,  and  comparatively  more  complete. 
They  too  contributed  much  to  establish  that  imposing, 
but  certainly  degenerate  form  of  warlike  and  sacerdo- 
tal Christianity,  which  had  been  growing  up  for  two  or 
three  centuries.  No  doubt  they  retained  and  infused 
into  the  Christianity  of  the  conquered  provinces  many 
of  their  old  native  superstitions  and  modes  of  religious 
thought  and  feeling,  but  far  less  than  survived  in  Ger- 
many itself.  There  the  nature-worship  lingered  be- 


CHAP.  II.  CONVERSION  OF  TEUTONS.  371 

hind  in  the  bosom  of  Christianity ;  and  under  the  sub- 
lime Monotheism  of  Christianity,  as  the  old  benefi- 
cent or  malignant  deities  of  paganism,  became  angels 
or  spirits  of  evil.  Everywhere  among  the  converted 
tribes,  the  groves,  the  fountains,  the  holy  animals,  pre- 
served their  sanctity.  As  we  accompany  the  missiona- 
ries in  their  spiritual  campaigns  we  shall  encounter 
many  curious  circumstances,  which  will  appear  more 
striking  when  in  their  proper  position,  than  brought  to- 
gether and  crowded  in  one  general  view.  The  char- 
acter of  the  Christianity  which  grew  up  out  of  these 
discordant  elements  will  be  best  discerned  in  the  prog- 
ress of  its  growth.1 

About  the  year  300  Christianity  had  found  its  way 
among  the  Goths  and  some  of  the  German  successive 
tribes    on    the   Rhine.      The   Visigoths  first  S^taSo 
embraced  the  Gospel,  as  a  nation ;  they  were  tr 
followed  by  the  Ostrogoths  ;  with  these  the  Vandals 
and  the  Gepidae  were  converted  during  the  fourth  cen- 
tury.    At  the  close   of  the  fifth  century  the  Franks 
were  converted,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth,  first 
the  Alemanni,  then  the  Lombards ;  the  Bavarians  in 
the  seventh   and  eighth,   the   Frisians,   Hessians,  and 
Thuringians  in  the  eighth  ;  the  Saxons  by  the  sword 
of  Charlemagne  in  the  ninth.     Our  present  inquiry 
limits  itself  to  the  conversions  within  the  pale  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  and  closes  with  that  of  the  Franks. 
With  the  exception  of  the  latter,  the  whole  of  these 
nations  were  the  conquests  of  Arian  Christi-  Ananism  of 
anity,  or  embraced  it  during  the  early  period  flr 

1  The  description  of  the  Holstenians  by  Helmold  (i.  47)  will  apply  more 
or  less  to  most  of  the  early  German  converts :  "  Nihil  de  religione  nisi  no- 
men  tantum  Christianitatis  habetis  .  .  .  nam  lucorum  et  fontium  csttera- 
nimque  superstitionum  multiplex  error  apud  vos  habetur." 


372  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  m 

of  their  belief.  That  diversity  of  religious  creed  which 
perplexed  the  more  mature  Christian,  especially  the  dis- 
putatious Greek  and  imaginative  Asiatic,  touched  not 
these  simple  believers.  The  Arian  Goth  had  submis- 
sively received  the  lessons  of  his  first  teacher,  and  with 
some  tribes  the  difference  was  so  little  felt,  that  he  did 
not  persecute  on  account  of  it.  Nations  changed  their 
belief  with  but  slight  reluctance.  The  Burgundians 
in  Gaul  were  first  Catholic,  then  Arian  under  the  Vis- 
igothic  rule,  Catholic  again  with  the  Franks.  The 
Suevians  in  Spain  were  first  Catholic,  then  fell  off  into 
Arianism  :  it  was  not  till  the  sixth  century  that  Spain 
was  Catholic.  For  soon,  indeed,  religious  difference 
became  a  pretext  for  cruelty  and  ambition,  made  the 
Vandal  in  Africa  a  persecutor  as  well  as  a  tyrant,  and 
became  the  battle-word  of  the  Frank  when  he  would 
invade  the  dominions  of  the  Burgundian  or  the  Visi- 
goth, or  when  he  descended  into  Italy  to  protect  the 
orthodox  Bishop  of  Rome  against  the  heterodox  Lom- 
bard. 

But  of  these  early  Arian  missionaries,  the  Arian 
uipMias.  records,  if  they  ever  existed,  have  almost  en- 
tirely perished.  The  Church  was  either  ignorant  of  or 
disdained  to  preserve  their  memory.  Ulphilus  alone, 
the  apostle  of  the  Goths,  has,  as  it  were,  forced  his  way 
into  the  Catholic  records,  in  which,  as  in  the  frag- 
ments of  his  great  work,  his  translation  of  the  Script- 
ures into  the  Mreso-Gothic  language,  this  admirable 
man  has  descended  to  posterity.1  Ulphilas  was  a  Goth 

1  The  orthodox  abbreviator  of  Philostorgius  acknowledges,  but  carefully 
suppresses,  the  praises  which  Philostorgius  had  lavished  on  riphila*.  We 
would  almost  have  forgiven  him  the  suppression  of  the  praise,  if  he  had 
imparted  the  more  extensive  information  which  Philostorgius  seems  to  have 
preserved  of  this  great  event. 


CHAP.  II.  ULPHILAS.  373 

by  birth,  not  by  descent.  His  ancestors,  during  a 
predatory  expedition  of  the  Goths  into  Asia,  under  the 
reign  of  Gallienus,  had  been  swept  away  with  many 
other  captives,  some  belonging  to  the  clergy,  from  a 
village  in  Cappadocia,  to  the  Gothic  settlements  north 
of  the  Danube.1  These  captives,  faithful  to  their 
creed,  perpetuated  and  propagated  among  their  masters 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Ulphilas  first  appears  as 
the  Bishop  of  the  Goths,  and  as  their  ambassador  at 
the  Court  of  Valens.2  His  religion,  and  his  descent 
from  a  Roman  provincial  family,  as  well  as  high  influ- 
ence, might  designate  him  for  this  mission  to  the  Ro- 
man Emperor  of  the  East.3  The  Goths  beyond  the 
Danube,  pressed  by  the  more  powerful  and  ferocious 
Huns,  requested  permission  to  cross  the  Danube,  and 
settle  in  Moesia,  within  the  Roman  frontier.  Among 
the  motives  which  induced  the  Emperor  to  consent, 
and  to  accept  this  nation  of  hardy  but  dangerous  sub- 
jects, was  their,  at  least  partial,  conversion  to  Christian- 

1  The  name  of  Eutyches,  called  by  St.  Basil,  the  Blessed,  has  survived, 
as  having,  from  the  same  region,  Cappadocia,  established  a  church  among 
the  Scythians,  (the  Sarmatians,)  who  had  been  subdued,  and  were  mingled 
with  the  Goths.    St.  Cyril  asserts  that  the  Scythians  had  no  cause  to  envy 
the  empire ;  they  had  their  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  sacred  virgins.  —  Cyril 
Hierosolym.  Catech.  xvi. 

2  Basil,  Epist.  16,  tome  iii. 

8  It  is  said  that  the  Gothic  bishop,  like  his  predecessor  Theophilus,  re- 
ported to  have  been  present  at  the  Council  of  Nicea  (Socrates,  ii.  41),  had 
professed  that  creed ;  that  he  was  threatened,  bribed,  persuaded  by  Valens 
to  accede  to  his  Arianism,  and  acquiesced  in  it  as  a  mere  verbal  dispute. 
QVK  dvai  doy/iaruv  i$r\  diatyopuv,  (Mu  fiaraiav  Ipw  kpydaa<r&ai  TJJV  6id- 
araacv.  —  Theodoret,  iv.  37.  But  see  the  very  curious  character  and  creed 
of  Ulphilas,  in  the  speech  of  his  disciple  Bishop  Auxentius  at  the  Council 
of  Aquileia  (A.D.  381),  reported  by  Bishop  Maximinus.  This  remarkable 
fragment  was  edited  by  Dr.  Waitz  from  a  MS.  in  Paris.  Tiber  das  Leben 
und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfila,  von  George  Waitz.  Hanover,  1840.  Also  the 
Preface  to  the  new  and  excellent  Edition  of  the  Bible  of  Ulfilas,  by  the 
very  learned  H.  F.  Massmann.  Stutgard,  1856. 


374  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH 

ity.  Ulphilas  was  called  by  the  grateful  Christian 
Goths,  who  might  now  pasture  their  herds  in  the  rich 
plains  of  Thrace,  the  Moses,  who  had  led  them  into 
Mig»ti<m  *^e  ^^  °^  P1"0111^'1  But  the  disciples  of 
^^"the  Ulphilas  formed  but  a  small  part  of  the 
vast  migration,  which,  partly  under  permis- 
sion, partly  by  bribery  of  the  Imperial  officers,  partly 
by  stealth,  and  partly  by  force,  came  swarming  over 
the  river,  and  took  possession  of  the  unprotected  Ro- 
man province.  The  heathen  part  of  the  population 
brought  over  their  own  priests  and  priestesses,  with 
their  altars  and  rites ;  but  on  those  mysterious  rites  they 
maintained  an  impenetrable  silence ;  they  disguised 
then*  priests  in  the  garb  and  manners  of  Christian  bishops. 
They  had  even  fictitious  monks  clothed  in  black,  and 
demeaning  themselves  as  Christian  ascetics.2  Thus, 
relates  the  heathen  historian,  who  makes  this  curious 
statement,  while  they  faithfully  but  secretly  adhered  to 
their  own  religion,  the  Romans  were  weak  enough  to 
suppose  them  perfect  Christians.  But  once  on  the  Ro- 
man side  of  the  Danube,  the  more  martial  Goths 
spurned  the  religion  which  they  had  condescended  to 

1  Philostorg.  ii.  5.    Auxentins  (apnd  Waitz,  p.  20)  uses  the  same  com- 
parison to  Moses  and  the  Red  Sea  (the  Danube),  and  adds,  "  eo  populo  in  solo 
Romania  ubi  sine  illis  septem  arm  is  triginta  et  tribus  annis  veritatem  pra- 
dieavit,  &c."  — and  so  makes  up  the  forty  years  of  Moses. 

2  This  remarkable  passage  of  Eunapins  is  one  of  the  most  important  his- 
torical fragments  discovered  in  the  Palimpsest  MSS.  by  Monsignor  Mai. 
It  was  of  course  unknown  to  the  older  historians,  including  Gibbon. — 
Mai,  p.  277.    In  the  reprint  of  the  Byzantines  (Bonn,  1829,  edit.  Niebuhr), 
p.  82.    Eunapins  speaks  of  the  false  bishops  having  much  of  the  fox.    The 
hatred  of  Eunapius  to  the  monks  breaks  out  in  his  description  of  these  im- 
postors.   "  The  mimicry  of  the  monks  was  not  difficult ;  it  was  enough  to 
•weep  the  ground  with  black  robes  and  tunics,  to  be  good  for  nothing  and 
believed  in."    Ow5h>  i^ovarK  r^f  fUfaiaeuf  irpaypaTuies  KOI  f>vano>.ov,  «/,- 
Ac  t$i]OKti  fcua  ifiaria  avpovoi  «oi  gtruvta,  irov»?paf  re  eivai  KCU  jrurreiie <n?<u. 


(HAP. II.  STRIFE  AMONG  THE  GOTHS.  375 

feign  with  barbarian  cunning.1  Ulphilas,  as  a  true 
missionary  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  aspired  not  merely 
to  convert  his  disciples  to  Christianity,  but  to  peaceful 
habits.  In  his  translation  of  the  Scriptures  he  left  out 
the  Books  of  Kings,  as  too  congenial  and  too  stimula- 
tive to  their  warlike  propensities.2  The  Goths  divided 
into  two  factions,  each  with  its  great  hereditary  chief- 
tain :  of  the  one,  the  valiant  Athanaric ;  of  strife  among 
the  other  Fritigern,  the  friend  of  Ulphilas.  the  Goths- 
The  warlike  and  anti-Christian  party  appealed  to  their 
native  Gods,  and  raised  a  violent  persecution.3  The 
God  of  their  fathers  was  placed  on  a  lofty  wagon,  and 
drawn  through  the  whole  camp ;  all  who  refused  their 
adoration  were  burned,  with  their  whole  families,  in 
their  tents.  A  multitude,  especially  of  helpless  women 
and  children,  who  took  refuge  in  their  rude  church, 
were  likewise  mercilessly  burned  with  their  sacred  edi- 
fice.4 But  while  in  their  two  great  divisions,  the  Os- 
trogoths and  Visigoths,  the  nation,  gathering  its  de- 
scendants from  all  quarters,  spread  their  more  or  less 
rapid  conquests  over  Gaul,  Italy,  and  Spain,  Ulphilas 
formed  a  peaceful  and  populous  colony  of  shepherds 
and  herdsmen  on  the  pastures  below  Mount  Hsemus.6 

1  Are  we  to  attribute  Jerome's  triumphant  exclamations  to  these  events  ? 
Probably  not  altogether.    "  Getarum  rutilus  et  flavus  exercitus,  Ecclesia- 
rum  circumfert  tentoria."  —  Ad  Laet.     "Stridorem  suum  in  dulce  crucis 
fregerunt  melos."  — Ad  Heliod.     "  Hunni  discunt  Psalterium."  — Ad  Lest. 

2  Philostorgius,  loc.  cit. 

8  These  persecutions  are  by  some  placed  before  the  migration  over  the 
Danube.     I  think  the  balance  of  probability  favors  the  view  in  the  fext. 

4  Sozomen,  iv.  37.    Compare  the  legend  of  St.  Saba.  apud  Bolland,  April 
12  —  remembering  that  it  is  a  legend. 

5  "  Gotlii  minores,  populus  immensus  cum  suo  Pontifice  ipsoque  Primate 
Wulfila  ...  ad  pedes  mentis.     Gens  multa  sedit,  pauper  et  imbellis,  nisi 
armento,  diversi  generis  pecorum  et  pascuis,  silvaque  lignorum,  parum 
aabens  tritici."  —  Jornandes,  c.  Hi. 


376  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH. 

He  became  the  Primate  of  a  simple  Christian  nation. 
For  them  he  formed  an  alphabet  of  twenty-four  1 
and  completed  (all  but  the  fierce  Books  of  Kings)  his 
translation  of  the  Scriptures.  Thus  the  first  Teutonic 
Christians  received  the  gift  of  the  Bible,  in  their  own 
lang^iage,  from  the  Apostle  of  their  race.1 

No  record  whatever,  not  even  a  legend  remains,  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  two  great  branches  of  the 
History  of  Gothic  race,  the  Visigoths  in  France,  the 
unknown,  Ostrogoths  in  Pannonia,  and  the  Suevians 
in  Spam,  the  Gepidae,  the  Vandals,  the  mingled  hosts 
which  formed  the  army  of  Odoacer,  the  first  king  of 
Italy,  and  at  length  the  fierce  Lombards,  were  con- 
verted to  Christianity.2  They  no  doubt  yielded  —  but 
secretly  and  imperceptibly  —  to  those  influences  de- 
scribed above ;  the  faith  appears  to  steal  from  nation  to 
nation,  and  wins  king  after  king  ;  and  it  is  only  when 
they  become  sovereigns  of  great  independent  kingdoms, 
conquerors  like  Alaric,  founders  of  dynasties  like  The- 
odoric  in  Italy  and  the  Visigothic  and  Suevian  mon- 
archs  in  France  and  Spain,  or  raise  fierce  persecutions, 
like  the  Vandals  in  Africa  against  the  Catholics,  that 
we  recognize  them  as  professed  Christians,  and  Chris- 
tians holding  a  peculiar  form  of  faith.3 

Of  the  Burgundians  alone,  and  the  motives  of  their 

1  It  is  difficult  to  discriminate  between  the  rhetoric  and  the  facts  recorded 
by  Jerome.  If  we  are  to  take  his  words  in  their  plain  sense,  theologic 
studies  were  far  advanced  among  the  Goths :  "  Quis  hoc  crederet  ut  bar- 
bara  Getarum  lingua  Hebraicam  qiuereret  veritatem?  et  donuitantibus 
imo  contendentibus  Graecis,  ipea  Germania  Spiritus  Sancti  eloquia  scrutare- 
tur."  —  Epist.  ad  Juniam  et  Fretilam,  torn.  ii.  p.  626. 

*  Idacius  (Chron.  448)  says  the  Suevians  were  first  Catholic;  if  so,  they 
were  converted  to  Arianism  by  the  Goths. 

•  Compare  a  modern  book  of  research  and  judgment,  and  on  the  whole, 
of  candor,  L'Arianisme  des  Peuples  Germaniques,  par  Ch.  J.  Keveillot. 
Paris:  Besancon,  1850. 


CHAP.  II.          GOTHS  ALT.  AEIANS.  877 

conversion,  remains  a  curious  detail  in  one  of  eicept  of 
the  Byzantine  ecclesiastical  historians.  The  Buisun' 
Burgundians  occupied  at  that  time  the  left  bank  of  the 
Rhone,  had  acquired  peaceful  habits,  and  employed 
themselves  in  some  kind  of  manufacture.1  The  ter- 
rible invasion  of  the  Huns  broke  in  upon  their  quiet 
industry.  Despairing  of  the  aid  of  man,  they  looked 
round  for  some  protecting  Deity  ;  the  God  of  the  Ro- 
mans appeared  the  mightiest,  as  worshipped  by  the 
most  powerful  people.  They  set  off  to  a  neighboring 
city  of  Gaul,  requested,  and  after  some  previous  fasting, 
received  baptism  from  the  bishop.  Their  confidence  in 
their  new  tutelar  Deity  gave  them  courage,  they  dis- 
comfited with  a  small  body  of  troops,  about  3000,  a 
vast  body  of  the  Huns,  who  lost  10,000  men.  From 
that  time  the  Burgundians  embraced  Christianity,  in 
the  words  of  the  historian,  with  fiery  zeal.2 

But  all  these  nations  were  converts  to  the  Arian 
form  of  Christianity,  except  perhaps  the  Bur-  AII  Arians. 
gundians,3  who  under  the  Visigoths  fell  off  to  Arianism. 
Ulphilas  himself  was  a  semi-  Arian,  and  acceded  to  the 
creed  of  Rimini.  Hence  the  total  silence  of  the 
Catholic  historians,  who  perhaps  destroyed,  or  dis- 
dained to  preserve  the  fame  of  Arian  conquests  to  the 
common  Christianity.4  The  first  conversion  of  a  Teu- 
tonic nation  to  the  faith,  of  which  any  long  and  par- 


1  Socrates,  Ecc.  Hist  vii.  30.    Ovrot  /3wn>  airpaypova  &>otv  ael, 

ydp  axedov  jrdvref  slaiv.     Of  what  were  they  artisans  ?    This  was  during 
the  reign  of  Theodosius  II.,  A.D.  408-449. 

2  To  Mvof  dia-xvpuf  kxpurriaviaev,  loc.  tit. 
8  Orosius,  vii.  22. 

4  Salvian  is  absolutely  charitable  to  the  errors  of  the  German  Arians  : 
''Hseretici  ergo  sunt,  sed  non  scientes.  Errant  ergo,  sed  bono  animo  errant, 
non  odio  sed  affectu  Dei."  But  this  is  to  contrast  them  with  the  vices  of 
he  orthodox.  —  De  Gubern.  Dei. 


378  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

ticular  account  survives,  was  that  of  the  Franks,  and 
that  by  Catholic  prelates  into  stern  proselytes  to  the 
Catholic  faith.1 . 

This  conversion  of  the  Franks  was  the  most  impor- 
Convewion  ^nt  event  in  its  remote  as  well  as  its  immediate 
Franks,  consequences  in  European  history.  It  had  great 
influence  on  the  formation  of  the  Frankish  monarchy. 
The  adoption  of  the  Catholic  form  of  faith,  by  arraying 
on  the  side  of  the  Franks  all  the  Catholic  prelates  and 
their  followers,  led  to  their  preponderance  over  the 
Visigothic  and  Burgundian  kings,  to  their  descent  into 
Italy  under  Pepin  and  his  son,  and  to  their  intimate 
connection  with  the  Papal  see  ;  and  thus  paved  the 
way  for  the  Western  Empire  of  Charlemagne.  They 
were  the  chosen  champions  of  Catholicism,  and  Ca- 
tholicism amply  repaid  them  by  vindicating  all  their 
aggressions  upon  the  neighboring  kingdoms,  and  aid- 
ing in  every  way  the  consolidation  of  their  formidable 
power.  The  Franks,  the  most  barbarous  of  the  Teu- 
tonic tribes  (though  in  cruelty  they  seem  to  have  been 
surpassed  by  the  Vandals),  had  settled  in  a  Christian 
country,  already  illustrious  in  legendary  annals  for  the 
wonders  of  Saints,  as  of  Martin  of  Tours,  the  founda- 
tion of  monasteries,  and  the  virtues  of  Bishops  like 
Remigius,  who  gave  his  name  to  the  great  cathedral 
city  of  Rheims.  The  south  of  France  was  ruled  by 
Arian  sovereigns.  Clovis  was  a  pagan,  then  only  the 
chief  of  about  4000  Frankish  warriors,  but  full  of 
adventurous  daring  and  unmeasured  ambition.  His 
conversion,  if  it  had  not  issued  in  events  of  such  pro- 

1  Gregory  of  Tours  is  the  great  authority  for  this  period :  he  wrote  for 
those  "  qui  appropinquante  mundi  fine  desperant."  — In  Prolog.  See  Loebel, 
Gregor  von  Tours ;  Ampere,  Hist.  Lit.  de  la  France. 


CHAP.  II.  CLOVIS. 

found  importance  to  mankind,  might  have  seemed  but 
a  trivial  and  fortuitous  occurrence.  The  influence  of 
a  female  conspires  with  the  conviction  that  the  Chris- 
tians' God  is  the  stronger  God  of  battle  ;  such  are  the 
impulses  which  seem  to  bring  this  bold  yet  crafty  bar- 
barian, who  no  doubt  saw  his  advantage  in  his  change 
of  belief,  to  the  foot  of  the  Cross,  and  made  him  a 
strenuous  assertor  of  orthodox  faith.  Clovis  had  ob- 
tained in  marriage  the  niece  of  Gundebald,  king  of  the 
Burgundians.  The  early  life  of  this  Princess  was 
passed  amid  the  massacre  of  her  parents  and  kindred ; 
it  shows  how  little  Christianity  had  allayed  the  ferocity 
of  these  barbarians. 

Gundicar,  king  of  the  Burgundians,  left  four  sons. 
The  fate  of  the  family  was  more  like  that  of  GUndica,r  the 
a  polygamous  Eastern  prince,  where  the  sons  Bursun< 
of  different  mothers,  bred  up  without  brotherly  inter- 
course in  the  seraglio,  own  no  proximity  of  blood. 
Gundebald,  the  elder  son,  first  slew  his  brother  Chilperic, 
tied  a  stone  round  the  neck  of  Chilperic's  wife,  and 
cast  her  into  the  Rhone,  beheaded  his  two  sons  and 
threw  their  bodies  into  a  well.  The  daughters,  of 
whom  Clotilda  was  one,  he  preserved  alive.  Godemar, 
his  next  brother,  he  besieged  in  his  castle,  set  it  on  fire, 
and  burned  him  alive.  Godesil,  the  third  brother,  as 
will  be  related  at  a  subsequent  period,  shared  the  same 
fate.  Gundebald,  as  yet  only  a  double  fratricide,  either 
felt,  or  thought  it  right  to  appear  to  feel,  deep  remorse 
for  his  crimes.  Avitus,  Bishop  of  Vienne,  saw  or  imag- 
ined some  inclination  in  the  repentant  king  to  embrace 
Catholicism.  In  far  different  language  from  that 
spoken  by  Ambrose  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  the 
Bishop  addressed  the  bloody  monarch,  —  "  You  weep 


380  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  m 

with  inexpressible  grief  at  the  death  of  your  brothers, 
your  sympathizing  people  are  afflicted  by  your  sadness. 
But  by  the  secret  counsels  of  God,  this  sorrow  shall 
turn  to  joy ;  no  doubt  this  diminution  in  the  number 
of  its  princes  was  intended  for  the  welfare  of  the  king- 
dom, those  alone  were  allowed  to  survive  who  are 
needed  for  the  administration  of  the  kingdom."  l 

Gundebald,  however,  resisted  these  flattering  argu- 
ments, and  remained  obstinately  Arian  ;  but  Clotilda, 
his  niece,  it  is  unknown  through  what  influence,  was 
educated  in  orthodoxy.  Clotilda  took  the  opportunity, 
when  the  heart  of  her  husband  Clovis  might  be  softened 
by  the  birth  of  her  first-born  son,  to  endeavor  to  \vean 
him  from  his  idolatry.  Clovis  listened  with  careless 
indifference ;  yet  with  the  same  indifference  common  in 
the  Teutonic  tribes,  permitted  the  baptism  of  the  infant. 
But  the  child  died,  and  Clovis  saw  in  his  death  the 
resentment  of  his  offended  Gods;  he  took  but  little 
comfort  from  the  assurance  of  the  submissive  mother, 
that  her  son,  having  been  baptized,  was  in  the  presence 
of  God.  Yet  with  the  same  strange  versatility  of  feel- 
ing, he  allowed  his  second  son  also  to  be  baptized.  This 
child  too  declined,  and  Clovis  began  to  renew  his 
reproaches ;  but  the  prayer  of  the  mother  was  heard, 
and  the  child  restored  to  health.2 

It  was  not,  however,  in  this  gentler  character  that 
the  Frank  would  own  the  power  of  the  Christians' 
cioTfa.  God.  The  Franks  and  the  Alemanni  met  in 
battle  at  Tolbiac,  not  far  from  Cologne.  The  Franks 

1  Alcimi  Aviti  Epist.  apud  Sirmond.  oper.  vol.  ii. 

*  According  to  Gregory  of  Tours,  she  argued  with  her  husband  against 
the  worship  of  Saturn,  Jupiter,  Mars,  and  Mercury.  Was  it  ignorance 
or  did  Gregory  suppose  that  he  was  writing  like  a  Roman?  —  Gregor 
Turon.  ii. 


CHAP.  H.  CLOVIS.  381 

were  worsted,  when  Clovis  bethoaorht  him  of  Clotilda's 

'  O 

God.  He  cast  off  his  own  inefficient  divinities  ;  he 
prayed  to  Christ,  and  made  a  solemn  vow,  that  if  he 
were  succored,  he  would  be  baptized  as  a  Christian. 
The  tide  of  battle  turned  ;  the  king  of  the  Alemanni 
was  slain  ;  and  the  Alemanni,  in  danger  of  total  de- 
struction, hailed  Clovis  as  their  sovereign.1 

Clotilda,  without  loss  of  time,  sent  the  glad  tidings 
to  Remigius,  Bishop  of  the  city,  which  afterwards  took 
his  name.  Clovis  still  hesitated,  till  he  could  consult 
his  people.  The  obsequious  warriors  declared  their 
readiness  to  be  of  the  same  religion  as  their  king.  To 
impress  the  minds  of  the  barbarians  the  baptismal 
ceremony  was  performed  with  the  utmost  pomp ;  the 
church  was  hung  with  embroidered  tapestry  and  white 
curtains ;  odors  of  incense  like  airs  of  Paradise  were 
diffused  around;  the  building  blazed  with  countless 
lights.  When  the  new  Constantine  knelt  in  the  font 
to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  of  his  heathenism, 
"  Fierce  Sicambrian,"  said  the  Bishop,  "  bow  thy 
neck  :  burn  what  thou  hast  adored,  adore  what  thou 
hast  burned  !"  Three  thousand  Franks  followed  the 
example  of  Clovis.  During  one  of  their  subsequent 
religious  conferences,  the  Bishop  dwelt  on  the  barbar- 
ity of  the  Jews  in  the  death  of  the  Lord.  Clovis 
was  moved,  but  not  to  tenderness, — "  Had  A.B.  496. 
I  and  my  faithful  Franks  been  there,  they  had  not 
dared  to  do  it." 

At    that    time   Clovis    the    Frank    was    the    only 
orthodox   sovereign   in    Christendom.     The   Emperor 

1  "  luvocavi  enim  Decs  meos,  sed,  ut  experior,  elongati  sunt  ab  auxilio 
meo,  unde  credo  eos  nullius  esse  potestatis  pneditos,  qui  sibi  obedientibus 
non  succurrunt.  Te  nunc  invoco,  et  tibi  credens  desidero,  tauturn  ut  eruar 
ab  adversariis  meis."  —  Greg.  Turon.  ii.  30. 


382  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

ciovfc  the      Anastasius  lay  at  least  under  the  suspicion 

only  orthodox      »      »  .  ,  _  ,  .  ,  A         . 

iovereign.  or  favonng  the  Jiiutjchian  heresy.  Ihe 
Ostrogoth  Theodoric  in  Italy,  the  Visigothic *  and 
Burgundian  kings  in  France,  the  Suevian  in  Spain, 
the  Vandal  in  Africa  were  Arians.  If  unscrupulous 
ambition,  undaunted  valor  and  enterprise,  and  deso- 
lating warfare,  had  been  legitimate  means  for  the 
propagation  of  pure  Christianity,  it  could  not  have 
fourd  a  better  champion  than  Clovis.  For  the  first 
time  the  diffusion  of  belief  in  the  nature  of  the  God- 
head became  the  avowed  pretext  for  the  invasion  of  a 
neighboring  territory.2  Already  the  famous  Avitus, 
Bishop  of  Vienne,  has  addressed  a  letter  to  Clovis,  in 
which  he  augurs  from  the  faith  of  Clovis  the  victory 
of  the  Catholic  faith;  even  the  heterodox  Byzantine 
emperor  is  to  tremble  on  his  throne ;  Catholic  Greece 
to  exult  at  the  dawning  of  this  new  light  in  the  West. 
The  wars  of  Clovis  with  Burgundy  were  all  but  openly 
declared  wars  of  religion ;  the  orthodox  clergy  hardly 
condescended  to  disguise  their  inclination  to  the  Franks, 

O  * 

whom  they  supported  with  their  prayers,  if  not  with 
more  substantial  assistance.8  Before  the  war  broke  out, 

1  Euric,  the  greatest  of  the  Visigothic  kings,  was  now  dead;  he  had  left 
but  feeble  successors.    Euric  labored  under  the  evil  fame  of  a  persecutor; 
he  had  attempted  what  Theodoric  aspired  to  effect  in  Italy,  but  with  far  less 
success,  the  fusion  of  the  two  races  —  the  Roman  and  Teutonic;  but  that 
of  which  Sidonius  so  bitterly  complains,  of  so  many  sees  vacant  by  the 
Intolerance  of  Euric,  the  want  of  bishops  and  clergy  to  perpetuate  the 
Catholic  succession,  ruined  churches,  and  grass-grown  altars,  reads  as  too 
eloquent.    Reveillot  admits  that  the  views  of  Euric  were  political  rather 
than  religious  (p.  141). 

2  The  rebellion  of  Vitalianus  in  the  East  was  a  few  years  later. 

8  The  barbarous  Clovis  must  have  heard,  it  must  not  be  said,  read,  still 
less,  considering  the  obscure  style  of  the  prelate,  understood,  the  somewhat 
gross  and  lavish  flattery  of  his  faith,  his  humility,  even  his  mercy,  to  which 
the  saintly  Bishop  scrupled  not  to  condescend :  "  Vestra  fides  nostrn  victoria 
est.  .  .  .  Gaudeat  ergo  quidem  Graecia  se  habere  principem  legis  nostrae. 


CHAP.  H.  CLOVIS.  383 

a  synod  of  the  orthodox  Bishops  met,  it  is  said,  under 
the  advice  of  Remigius,  at  Lyons.  With  Avitus  at 
their  head,  they  visited  King  Gundebald,  and  proposed 
a  conference  with  the  Arian  bishops,  whom  they  were 
prepared  to  prove  from  the  Scripture  to  be  in  error.1 
The  king  shrewdly  replied,  — "  If  yours  be  the  true 
doctrine,  why  do  you  not  prevent  the  King  of  the 
Franks  from  waging  an  unjust  war  against  me,  and 
from  caballing  with  my  enemies  against  me  ?  2  There  is 
no  true  Christian  faith  where  there  is  rapacious  covet- 
ousness  for  the  possessions  of  others,  and  thirst  for 
blood.  Let  him  show  forth  his  faith  by  his  good  works." 
Avitus  skilfully  eluded  this  question,  and  significantly 
replied,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  motives  of  Clovis, 
"  but  this  I  know,  that  God  overthrows  the  thrones  of 
those  who  are  disobedient  to  his  law." 8  When  after 
the  submission  of  the  Burgundian  kingdom  to  the  pay- 
ment of  tribute  to  the  Franks,  Gundebald  resumed  the 
sway,  his  first  act  was  to  besiege  his  brother  Godesil, 
the  ally  of  Clovis,  in  Vienne.  Godesil  fled  to  the  Arian 
church,  and  was  slain  there  with  the  Arian  Bishop.4 

Numquid  fidem  perfecto  prsedicabimus  quam  ante  perfectionem  sine  prae- 
dicatore  vidistis  ?  an  forte  humilitatem  ...  an  misericordiam  quam  solutus 
a  vobis  adhuc  nuper  populus  captivus  gaudiis  mundo  insinuat  lacrymis 
Deo  ?  "  The  mercy  of  Clovis !  —  Avitus,  Epist.  xli. 

1  It  is  remarkable  that  all  the  distinguished  and  influential  of  the  clergy 
appear  on  the  Catholic  side.     The  Arians  are  unknown  even  by  name.    It 
is  true  that  we  have  only  Catholic  annalists.    But  I  have  little  doubt  that 
the  Arian  prelates  were  for  the  most  part  barbarians,  inferior  in  education 
and  in  that  authority  which  still,  in  peaceful  functions,  attached  to  the  Ro- 
man name.     It  was  Rome  now  enlisting  a  new  clan  of  barbarians  in  her 
own  cause,  and  under  her  own  guidance,  against  her  foreign  oppressors. 

2  The  Bishop  Avitus  of  Vienne  was  in  correspondence  with  the  insurgent 
Vitalianus  in  the  court  of  the  Emperor  Anastasius.     So  completely  were 
now  all  wars  and  rebellions  religious  wars. 

8  Collatio  Episcop.  apud  D'Achery,  Spicileg.  iii.  p.  304. 

*  M.  Reveillot  has  very  ingeniously,  perhaps  too  ingeniously,  worked  out 


384  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

On  this  occasion  Avitus  tried  again  to  work  on  the 
obstinate  mind  of  Gundebald ;  his  arguments  con- 
founded but  did  not  persuade  the  king,  who  retained 
his  errors  to  the  end  of  his  life. 

When,  however,  Clovis  determined  to  attack  the 
Religious  kingdom  of  the  Visigoths,  the  monkish  his- 
torian ascribes  to  him  this  language:  —  "I 
am  sore  troubled  that  these  Arians  still  possess  so  large 
a  part  of  Gaul."1  Before  he  set  out  on  his  campaign 
the  King  of  the  Franks  went  to  perform  his  devotions 
before  the  shrine  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours.  As  he 
entered  the  church  he  heard  the  words  of  the  Psalm 
which  they  were  chanting,  —  "  Thou  hast  girded  me, 
O  Lord,  with  strength  unto  the  battle  ;  thou  hast  sub- 
dued unto  me  those  which  rose  up  against  me.  Thou 
hast  given  me  the  necks  of  mine  enemies,  that  I  might 
destroy  them  that  hate  me."2  The  oracular  words 
were  piously  fulfilled  by  Clovis.  The  Visigothic  king- 
dom was  wasted  and  subdued  by  the  remorseless  sword 
of  the  Frank.  These  are  not  the  only  illustrations  of 
the  Christianity  practised  by  Clovis,  and  related  in 

the  religious  history  of  the  reign  of  King  Gundebald  (p.  189  et  seq.).  But 
he  is  somewhat  tender  to  the  Bishop,  who  "almost  prai.-cs  (luixlrliald  for 
the  murder  of  his  brothers."  The  passage  is  too  characteristic  to  be 
omitted:  "  Flebatis  quondam  pietate  ineffabili  funera  germanorum  (he 
had  murdered  them),  sequebatur  ill-turn  publicum  itniversitatis  atllk-tio, 
et  occulto  divinitatis  intuitu,  instrumenta  mccstitia:  parabnntur  ad  gaudium 
....  Minuebat  regni  felicitas  numerum  regalium  persoiiarum  et  hocsolum 
servabatur  mundo,  quod  sufficeret  imperio  (the  good  Turkish  maxim). 
Illic  repositum  est  quicquid  prosperum  fuit  catholR-a*  vi-ritati."  This  is 
said  of  an  Arian,  but  the  father  of  an  orthodox  son,  Sigismund,  converted 
by  Avitus.  —  Epist.  v.  p.  95. 

1  Valde  moleste  fero,  quod  hi  Ariani  partem  Galliarum  tcnent.  Earn  us 
cum  Dei  adjutorio,  et  superatis  eis  terrain  redigamus  in  ditionem  nostram. 
—  Greg.  Tur.  ii.  37. 

8  Psalm  xviii.  39.  Did  Clovis  understand  Latin  ?  or  did  the  orthodox 
clergy  of  Tours  interpret  the  flattering  prophecy  V 


CHAP.  H.  CLOVIS.  385 

perfect  simplicity  by  his  monkish  historian.1  Gregory 
of  Tours  describes  without  emotion  one  of  the  worst 
acts  which  darken  the  reign  of  Clovis.  He  suggested 
to  the  son  of  Sigebert,  King  of  the  Ripuarian  Franks, 
the  assassination  of  his  father,  with  the  promise  that 
the  murderer  should  be  peaceably  established  on  the 
throne.  The  murder  was  committed  in  the  neighboring 
forest.  The  parricide  was  then  slain  by  the  command 
of  Clovis,  who  in  a  full  parliament  of  the  nation 
solemnly  protested  that  he  had  no  share  in  the  murder 
of  either ;  and  was  raised  by  general  acclamation  on  a 
shield,  as  King  of  the  Ripuarian  Franks.  Gregory 
concludes  with  this  pious  observation :  — "  For  God 
thus  daily  prostrated  his  enemies  under  his  hands,  and 
enlarged  his  kingdom,  because  he  walked  before  him 
with  an  upright  heart,  and  did  that  which  Born  A  D 
was  pleasing  in  his  sight."  2  Yet  Gregory  s39-594- 

1  Miracles  accompany  his  bloody  arms;  a  hind  shows  a  ford;  a  light 
from  the  church  of  St.  Hilary  in  Poitiers  summons  him  to  hasten  his  attack 
before  the  arrival  of  the  Italian  troops  of  Theodoric  in  the  camp  of  the 
Visigoth.     The  walls  of  AngoulSme  fall  of  their  own  accord.     Gregory 
Tur.  ii.  37.    According  to  the  life  of  St.  Eemi.  Clovis  massacred  all  the 
Arian   Goths  in  the  city.  —  Ap.  Bouquet,  iii.  p.  379.     St  Cesarius,  the 
Bishop  of  Aries,  when  that  city  was  besieged  by  Clovis  and  the  Burgun- 
dians,  was  suspected  of  assisting  the  invader  by  more  than  his  prayers. 
He  was  imprisoned,  his  biographers  assert,  his  innocence  proved.  —  Vit.  S. 
Cirsar.  in  Mabill.  Ann.  Benedic.  ssec.  i. 

2  Greg.  Turon.  ii.  42.    "  Prosternebat  enim  quotidie  Deus  hostes  ejus 
sub  manu  ipsius  et  augebat  regnum  ejus,  eo  quod  ambulavit  recte  corde 
omniuo,  et  fecerit  quae  placita  erant  in  oculis  ejus."     There  follows  a  long 
list  of  assassinations  and  acts  of  the  darkest  treachery.    "  Clovis  fit  perir 
tous  les  petits  rois  des  Francs  par  une  suite  de  perfidies." — Michelet,  H. 
de  France,  i.  209.    The  note  recounts  the  assassinations.     Throughout,  the 
triumph  of  Clovis  is  the  triumph  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
over  Arianism.     "  Dominus  enim  se  vere  credentibus,  etsi  insidiante  ini- 
mico  aliqua  perdant,  his  centuplicata  restituit ;  hseretici  vero  nee  acquirunt, 
sed  quod  videntur  habere,  aufertur.    Probabat  hoc  Godigeseli,  Gundobaldi; 
atque  Godomari  interitus,  qui  et  patriam  simul  et  animas  perdiderunt." 
Prolog,  ad  lib.  iii. 

VOL.  i.  25 


386  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

of  Tours  was  a  prelate,  himself  of  gentle  and  blameless 
manners,  and  of  profound  piety. 

Throughout  indeed  this  dark  period  of  the  contest 
influence  of  between  the  Franks,  the  Visigoths,  and  the 
Burgundians  for  the  dominion  of  France,  as 
well  as  through  the  long  dreary  annals  of  the  Me- 
rovingian kings,  it  will  be  necessary,  as  well  as  just, 
to  estimate  the  character,  influence,  and  beneficent 
workings  of  the  clergy  on  the  whole  society.  But  the 
more  suitable  place  for  this  inquiry  will  be  when  the 
two  races,  the  Roman  provincial  and  the  Teutonic,  are 
more  completely  mingled,  though  not  fused  together, 
for  it  was  but  gradually  that  the  clergy,  who  never 
ceased  to  be  Roman  in  the  language  of  their  services 
and  of  letters,  ceased  to  be  so  in  sentiment,  and  through- 
out northern  France  especially,  in  blood  and  descent. 
There  is  more  even  at  this  time  of  the  first  conversion 
of  the  Franks  to  Christianity,  in  the  close  alliance  be- 
tween the  Roman  clergy  of  Gaul  with  the  Franks, 
than  the  contest  of  Catholicism  with  heterodoxy.  The 
ciergy  Arian  clergy  of  the  Visigoths  were  probably, 
Latin<  to  a  considerable  extent,  of  Teutonic  race, 
some  of  them,  like  Ulphilas,  though  provincials  of  the 
Empire  by  descent,  of  Gothic  birth.  Their  names 
have  utterly  perished ;  this  may  partly  (as  has  been 
said)  be  ascribed  to  the  jealousy  of  the  Catholic  writers, 
the  only  annalists  of  the  time.  But  the  conversion  of 
the  Franks  was  wrought  by  the  Latin  clergy.  The 
Franks  were  more  a  federation  of  armed  adventurers 
than  a  nation  migrating  with  their  families  into  new 
lands ;  they  were  at  once  more  barbarous  and  more 
exclusively  warlike.  It  would  probably  be  long  before 
they  would  be  tempted  to  lay  aside  their  arms  and 


CHAP.  II.  FRANKS  AND  LATINS.  387 

aspire  to  the  peaceful  ecclesiastical  functions.  The 
Roman  Gauls  might  even  imagine  that  they  beheld  in 
the  Franks  deliverers  from  the  tyranny  of  their  actual 
masters,1  the  Burgundians  or  Visigoths.  Men  im- 
patient of  a  galling  yoke  pause  not  to  consider  whether 
they  are  not  forging  for  themselves  another  more  heavy 
and  oppressive.  They  panted  after  release  from  their 
present  masters,  perhaps  after  revenge  for  the  loss  of 
their  freedom  and  their  lands,  for  their  degradation, 
their  servitude ;  and  cared  not  to  consider  whether  it 
would  not  be  a  change  from  bad  masters  to  worse. 
Clovis,  it  is  true,  had  commenced  his  career  by  the 
defeat  of  Syagrius,  the  last  Roman  who  pretended  to 
authority  in  Gaul,  and  had  thus  annihilated  the  linger- 
ing remains  of  the  Empire ;  but  that  would  be  either 
pardoned  by  the  clergy  or  forgotten  in  the  fond  hope 
of  some  improvement  in  their  condition  under  the  bar- 
barian sway.  It  was,  of  course,  a  deep  aggravation 
of  their  degraded  state  that  their  masters  were  not 
only  foreigners,  barbarians,  conquerors  —  they  were 
Arians.  The  Franks,  as  even  more  barbarous,  were 
more  likely  to  submit  in  obedience  to  ecclesiastical 
dominion  ;  and  so  it  appears  that  almost  throughout 
the  reign  of  the  Merovingian  dynasty  the  two  races 
held  their  separate  functions  —  the  Franks  as  kings, 
the  Latins  as  churchmen.  The  weak  prince  who  was 
leposed  from  his  throne,  or  the  timid  one  who  felt 
himself  unequal  to  its  weight,  was  degraded,  accord- 
ing to  the  Frankish  notion,  into  a  clerk  ; 2  he  lost  his 

1  Gregory  of  Tours  ingenuously  admits  "quod  omnes  (the  Catholic  clergy) 
desiderabili  amore  cupiverunt  eos  regnare."     1.  ii.  23. 

2  Queen  Clotilda,  when  her  two  sons  seized  their  nephews,  her  favorite 
grandsons  (the  children  of  Chlodomir),  and  gave  her  the  choice  of  their 
death  or  tonsure,  answered  like  a  Frankish  queen,  "  Satius  mihi  est,  si  ad 
regnum  non  veniant,  mortuos  eos  videre  quam  tonsos."  — iii.  18. 


388  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

national  eminence  and  distinction,  but  disqualified  by 
the  tonsure  from  resuming  his  civil  office,  according  to 
the  sacerdotal  notion,  he  was  admitted  to  the  blessed 
privilege  of  the  priesthood ;  while  at  the  same  time  his 
feeble  and  contemptible  character  was  a  guarantee 
against  his  becoming  a  dangerous  rival  for  the  higher 
honors  of  the  Church.  Hence,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
unchecked  growth  of  the  sacerdotal  authority,  and  the 
strong  Catholicity  of  the  clergy  among  the  Franks, 
the  retention  of  all  the  higher  offices,  at  least  in  the 
Church,  by  the  Roman  Provincials,  till  they  had  be- 
come of  such  power,  wealth,  and  dignity,  as  to  rouse 
the  amibftion  of  the  noble,  and  even  of  the  royal 
families.1  Until  that  time  the  two  races  remained 
distinct,  each  in  possession  of  his  separate,  uncontested 
function ;  and  each  might  be  actuated  by  high  and 
noble,  as  well  as  selfish  and  ambitious  motives.  The 
honest  and  simple  German  submitted  himself  to  the 
comparatively  civilized  priest  of  that  God  whom  he 
now  worshipped  —  the  expounder  of  that  mysterious 
creed  before  which  he  had  bowed  down  in  awe  —  the 
administrator  in  those  imposing  rites  to  which  he  was 
slowly  and,  as  it  were,  jealously  admitted,  —  the  award- 
er  of  his  eternal  doom.  On  the  other  hand  the  clergy, 
fully  possessed  with  the  majesty  of  their  divine  mission, 
would  hold  it  as  profanation  to  impart  its  sanctity  to  a 
rude  barbarian.  Not  merely  would  Roman  pride  find 

1  In  the  year  566  a  certain  Meroveus,  from  whose  name  he  may  be  con- 
cluded to  have  been  a  Frank,  appears  as  Bishop  of  Poitiers.  —  Greg.  Turon. 
be.  40.  Compare  Planck,  Christliche  Kirchliche  Verfassung,  ii.  p.  96.  It 
Is  a  century  later  that,  at  the  trial  of  Prsetextatus,  Archbishop  of  Rouen, 
are  twelve  prelates,  six  Teutons  —  Ragheremod,  of  Paris:  Landowald, 
Bayeux;  Remahaire,  Coutances;  Merowig,  Poitiers;  Melulf,  Senlis;  Ber- 
thran,  Bourdeaux.  Compare  Thierry,  Re'cits  des  Temp*  Mt'-rovingiens, 
the  one  writer  who,  by  his  happy  selection  and  artistic  skill,  has  made  the 
Merovingian  history  readable  (tome  ii.  p.  135). 


CHAP.  II.  ELEVATION  OF  MORAL  TONE.  389 

its  consolation  in  what  thus  maintained  its  influence 
and  superiority,  and  look  down  in  compassion  on  the 
ignorance  of  the  Teuton  —  his  ignorance  even  of  the 
language  of  their  sacred  records,  and  of  the  service, 
of  their  religion ;  the  Romans  would  hold  themselves 
the  heaven-commissioned  teachers  of  a  race  long  des- 

O 

lined  to  be  their  humble  and  obedient  scholars. 

We  return  to  the  general  view  of  the  conversion  of 
the  German  races.     The  effect  of  this  infu-  Effects  of 

.  n  rr\  i  i        i   •  i  i     i      -r»  conversion  on 

sion  ot  1  eutomc  blood  into  the  whole  Jttoman  Teutons, 
system,  and  this  establishment  of  a  foreign  dominant 
people  (of  kindred  manners,  habits  and  religion,  though 
of  various  descent)  in  the  separate  provinces  of  the  Em- 
pire which  now  were  rising  into  independent  kingdoms, 
upon  the  general  Christian  society,  and  on  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  age,  demands  attentive  consideration. 
Though  in  each  ancient  province,  and  in  each  recent 
kingdom,  according  to  the  genius  of  the  conquering 
tribe,  the  circumstances  of  the  conquest  and  settlement, 
and  the  state  of  the  Roman  population,  many  strong 
differences  might  exist,  there  were  some  general  results 
which  seem  to  belong  to  the  whole  social  revolution. 
In  one  important  respect  the  Teutonic  temperament 
coincided  with  Christianity  in  raising  the  moral  tone. 
In  all  that  relates  to  sexual  intercourse,  the  Roman  so- 
ciety was  corrupt  to  its  core,  and  the  contagion  had 
spread  throughout  the  provinces.  Christianity  had 
probably  wrought  its  change  rather  on  the  few  higher 
and  more  distinguished  individuals  than  on  the  whole 
mass  of  worshippers.  Most  of  these  few,  no  doubt, 
had  broken  the  bonds  of  habits  and  manners  by  a 
strong  and  convulsive  effort,  not  to  cultivate  the  purer 
charities  of  life,  but  in  the  aspiration  after  virtue,  unat- 


890  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

tainable  by  the  many.  Celibacy  had  many  lofty  minds 
and  devoted  hearts  at  its  service,  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  conjugal  fidelity  had  made  equal  progress. 
Christianity  had  secluded  a  certain  number  from  the 
world  and  its  vices ;  but  in  the  world  itself,  now  out- 
wardly Christian,  it  had  made  in  this  respect  far  less 
impression.  Not  that  it  was  without  power.  The 
On  moral  courts  of  the  Christian  Emperors,  notwith- 
punty-  standing  their  crimes,  weaknesses,  and  in- 
trigues, had  been  awed,  even  on  the  throne,  to  greater 
decency  of  manners.  Neither  Rome,  nor  Ravenna, 
nor  Byzantium,  had  witnessed,  they  would  not  have 
endured,  a  Nero  or  an  Elagabalus.  The  females  (be- 
lieving the  worst  of  the  early  life  of  the  Empress  The- 
odora) were  more  disposed  on  the  whole  to  the  crimes 
of  ambition,  and  political  or  religious  intrigue,  than  to 
that  flagrant  licentiousness  of  the  wives  and  mothers 
of  the  older  Caesars.  But  the  evil  was  too  profoundly 
seated  in  the  habits  of  the  Roman  world  to  submit  to 
the  control  of  religion  —  of  religion  embraced  at  first 
by  so  large  a  portion,  from  the  example  of  others,  from 
indifference,  from  force,  from  anything  rather  than 
strong  personal  conviction,  and  which  had  now  been 
long  received  merely  as  an  hereditary  and  traditional 
faith.  The  clergy  themselves,  as  far  as  may  be  judged, 
did  not  stand  altogether  much  above  the  general  level. 
They  had  their  heroes  of  continence,  their  spotless  ex- 
amples of  personal  purity  ;  but  though  in  general  they 
might  outwardly  submit  to  the  hard  law  of  celibacy,  by 
many  it  was  openly  violated,  by  many  more  secretly 
eluded ;  and,  as  ever  has  been,  the  denial  of  a  legiti- 
mate union  led  to  connections  more  unrestricted  and 
injurious  to  public  morality.  Scarcely  a  Provincial 


CHAP.  II.  GERMAN  MORALS.  391 

Council  but  finds  itself  called  upon  to  enact  more  strin- 
gent, and,  it  should  seem,  still  ineffective  prohibitions. 

Whether  as  a  reminiscence  of  some  older  civilization, 
or  as  a  peculiarity  in  their  national  character,  German  char- 

i       rr\  iii  •  i     i        i  •    i  acter  in  this 

the  1  eutons  had  always  paid  the  highest  re-  respect. 
spect  to  their  females,  a  feeling  which  cannot  exist 
without  high  notions  of  personal  purity,  by  which  it  is 
generated,  and  in  its  turn  tends  to  generate.  The 
colder  northern  climate  may  have  contributed  to  this 
result.  This  masculine  modesty  of  the  German  char- 
acter had  already  excited  the  admiration,  perhaps  had 
been  highly  colored  by  the  language,  of  Tacitus,  as  a 
contrast  to  the  effeminate  voluptuousness  of  the  Ro- 
mans —  marriages  were  held  absolutely  sacred,  and 
producing  the  most  perfect  unity ;  adulteries  rare,  and 
visited  with  public  and  ignominious  punishment.1  The 
Christian  teachers,  in  words  not  less  energetic,  though 
wanting  the  inimitable  conciseness  of  the  Roman  an- 
nalist, endeavor  to  shame  their  Latin  brethren  by  the 
severity  of  Teutonic  morals,  and  to  rouse  them  from 
their  dissolute  excesses  by  taunting  them  with  their  de- 
grading inferiority  to  barbarians,  heathens,  and  here- 
tics. Salvian  must  be  heard  with  some  reserve  in  his 
vehement  denunciation  against  the  licentiousness  of  the 
fifth  century.  He  is  seeking  to  vindicate  God's  provi- 
dential government  of  the  world  in  abandoning  the 
Roman  and  the  Christian  to  the  sway  of  the  pagan  and 

1  "  Inesse   quinetiam   sanctum  aliquid  et  providum  putant."  —  Germ. 
viii.     "  Quanquam  severa  illic  matrimonia,  nee  ullam  morum  partem  magis 

laudaveris Ergo  septa  pudicitia  agunt,  nullis  spectaculoruin  illecebris, 

nullis  conviviorura  irritationibus  corrupt*  ....  Nemo  .  .  .  illic  vitia 
ridet,  nee  corrumpere  et  corrumpi  saeculuni  videtur.  .  .  .  Sic  unum  acci- 
piunt  maritum,  quomodo  unum  corpus  unamque  vitam,  ne  ulla  cogitatio 
ultra,  ne  longior  cupiditas  ne  tanquam  maritum,  sed  tanquam  matrimo- 
oium  aruent."  —  xviii.  xix. 


392  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

the  barbarian.  "Among  the  chaste  barbarian-,  ue 
alone  are  unchaste:  the  very  barbarians  are  shocked  at 
our  impurities.  Among  themselves  they  will  not  tol- 
erate whoredom,  but  allow  this  shameful  license  to  the 
Romans  as  an  inveterate  usage.  We  cherish,  they  ex- 
ecrate, incontinence ;  we  shrink  from,  they  are  enam- 
ored of  purity;  fornication,  which  with  them  is  a 
crime  and  a  disgrace,  with  us  is  a  glory."1  Salvian 
describes  the  different  races,  who,  though  in  other  re- 
spects varying  in  their  character,  and  some  more  con- 
spicuous than  others  for  these  virtues,  were  all  never- 
theless far  superior  to  the  Romans.  The  Goths  are 
treacherous,  but  continent ;  the  Alemanni  less  treach- 
erous, and  also  less  continent;  the  Franks  false,  but 
hospitable  ;  the  Saxons  savagely  cruel,  but  remarkable 
for  chastity.2  The  Vandals,  if  Salvian  is  to  be  cred- 
ited, maintained  their  severe  virtue,  not  only  in  Spain, 
but  under  the  burning  sun  and  amidst  the  utter  deprav- 
ity of  African  morals,  and  in  that  state  of  felicity,  lux- 
ury, and  wealth  which  usually  unmans  the  mind. 
They  not  only  held  in  abomination  the  more  odious 
and  unnatural  vices  which  had  so  deeply  infected  the 
habits  of  Greece  and  Rome,  but  all  unlawful  connec- 
tions with  the  female  sex.3  According  to  the  same  au- 
thority, they  enforced  the  marriage  of  the  public  pros- 

1  De  Gubernat.  Dei,  1.  vii.  p.  66.    He  draws  the  same  contrast  between 
the  Roman  inhabitants  of  Spain  and  their  Vandal  conquerors. 

2  '*  Gothorum  gens  perfida  sed  pudica  est,  Alemanni  impudica  sed  minus 
perfida,  Franci  mendaces  sed  hospitales,  Saxones  crudelitate  efferi,  sed  cas- 
titate  venerandi." — Ibid. 

8  "  Et  certe  ob  e&  tantum  continentissimi  ac  modestissimi  judicandi 
erant  quos  non  fecisset  corruptiores  ipsa  felicitas  .  .  .  igitur  in  tanta- 
affluent! a  rerum  atque  luxuria,  nullus  eorum  mollis  effectus  est  ... 
abominati  enim  sunt  virorum  improbitates ;  plus  adhuc  addo,  abominati 
etiam  foeminarum;  horruerunt  lustra  ac  lupanaria,  horruerunt  contactua 
concubitusque  meretricum."  —  Ibid. 


CHAP.  II.      STRINGENCY  OF  GOTHIC  MORAL  CODE.  393 

titutes,  and  enacted  severe  laws  against  unchastity,  thus 
compelling  the  Romans  to  be  virtuous  against  their  will. 
Under  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom,  the  manners  in  Italy- 
might  seem  to  revert  to  the  dignified  austerity  of  the 
old  Roman  republic.  Theodoric  indignantly  reproves  a 
certain  Bardilas,  who  had  married  the  wife  of  an  officer 
(from  his  name  also  of  Gothic  blood)  while  the  hus- 
band was  absent  with  the  army.  He  speaks  of  it  as 
bringing  disgrace  on  the  age  and  on  the  Gothic  charac- 
ter.1 The  Ostrogothic  law  is  silent  as  to  incest  and  the 
crime  against  nature,  as  if,  in  its  lofty  purity,  it  did  not 
imagine  the  existence  of  such  offences.  This  code  was 
for  the  Goths  alone ;  the  Romans  were  still  amenable 
to  their  own  law.2  In  the  laws  of  Theodoric  the  Ger- 
man abhorrence  of  adultery  continued  to  make  it  a 
capital  crime ;  the  edict  was  inexorably  severe  against 
all  crimes  of  this  class  :  the  seducer  or  ravisher  of  a 
free  virgin  was  forced  to  marry  her,  and  endow  her 
with  a  fifth  of  his  estate ;  if  married,  he  forfeited  a 
third  of  his  property  to  his  victim ;  if  he  had  no  prop- 
erty, he  atoned  for  his  crime  by  death :  if  the  virgin 
was  a  slave,  the  criminal,  being  a  free  man,  was  de- 

1  "  In  injuriara  nostrorum  temporum,  adulterium  simulator,  matrimonii 
lege  commissum."     The  husband's  name  was  Patzena.    It  is  amusing  to 
hear  the  King  of  the  Goths  reminding  unchaste  women  of  the  fidelity  of 
turtledoves,  who  pine  away  in  each  other's  absence,  and  remain  in  strictly 
continent  widowhood:  "Kespicite  impudicae  gementium  turturum  castis- 
Bunum  genus,  quod  si  a  copula  fuerit  earn  intercedente  divisum,  perpetusi 
se  abstineutise  lege  constringit; "  and  this  is  a  royal  or  imperial  edict. 

2  Sartorius,  Essai  sur  1'Etat  des  Peuples  d'ltalie  sous  le  Gouvernement 
des  Goths  (p.  95).     "Odious  as  homicide  is,  it  would  be  more  odious  to 
punish  than  to  commit  that  crime  in  certain  cases,  as  in  that  of  open  adul- 
tery.    See  we  not  that  rams,  bulls,  and  goats  avenge  themselves  against 
their  rivals  ?     Shall  man  alone  be  unable  to  preserve  the  honor  of  his  bed  ? 
Examine  the  cause  of  Candax ;  if  he  only  killed  the  adulterers  who  dis- 
honored him,  remit  all  his  penalties ;  if  he  has  slain  innocent  men,  let  him 
be  punished."  —  Var.  i.  37. 


894  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH. 

graded  into  a  slave  of  the  wife  of  the  maiden's  master, 
if  he  could  not  redeem  his  guilt  by  supplying  two 
slaves;  the  rape  of  a  free  widow  was  subject  to  the 
capital  punishment  of  adultery.  The  parents  or  guar- 
dians of  a  female  who  had  suffered  rape  were  bound  to 
prosecute  on  pain  of  exile. 

In  some  provinces,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  that 
the  vices  as  well  as  the  religion  of  Rome  assert  their 
unshaken  dominion ;  or  rather  there  is  a  terrible  inter- 
change of  the  worst  parts  of  each  character.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  a  more  dark  and  odious  state  of  society 
than  that  of  France  under  her  Merovingian  kings,  the 
descendants  of  Clovis,  as  described  by  Gregory  of  Tours. 
In  the  conflict  or  coalition  of  barbarism  with  Roman 
Christianity,  barbarism  has  introduced  into  Christianity 
all  its  ferocity,  with  none  of  its  generosity  or  magna- 
nimity ;  its  energy  shows  itself  in  atrocity  of  cruelty 
and  even  of  sensuality.  Christianity  has  given  to  bar- 
barism hardly  more  than  its  superstition  and  its  hatred 
of  heretics  and  unbelievers.  Throughout,  assassinations, 
parricides,  and  fratricides  intermingle  with  adulteries  and 
rapes.1  The  cruelty  might  seem  the  mere  inevitable  re- 
sult of  this  violent  and  unnatural  fusion  ;  but  the  ex- 
tent to  which  this  cruelty  spreads  throughout  the  whole 
society  almost  surpasses  belief.  That  King  Chlotaire 
should  burn  alive  his  rebellious  son  with  his  wife  and 
daughter  is  fearful  enough  ;  but  we  are  astounded  even 
in  these  times  with  a  Bishop  of  Tours  burning  a  man 
alive  to  obtain  the  deeds  of  an  estate  which  he  coveted.2 
Fredegonde  sends  two  murderers  to  assassinate  Childe- 
bert,  and  these  assassins  are  clerks.  She  causes  the 

1  See  a  fearful  summary  in  Loebel,  Gregor  von  Tours,  pp.  60-74. 
a  iii.  1. 


CHAP.  II.  MEROVINGIAN  LICENTIOUSNESS.  395 

Archbishop  of  Rouen  to  be  murdered  while  he  is 
chanting  the  service  in  the  church ;  and  in  this 
crime  a  Bishop  and  an  Archdeacon  are  her  accom- 
plices. She  is  not  content  with  open  violence,  she 
administers  poison  with  the  subtlety  of  a  Locusta  or 
a  modern  Italian,  apparently  with  no  sensual  design, 
but  from  sheer  barbarity. 

As  to  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes,  wars  of  conquest, 
where  the  females  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  victors,  espe- 
cially if  female  virtue  is  not  in  much  respect,  Merovingian 
would  severely  try  the  more  rigid  morals  of  time8' 
the  conqueror.  The  strength  of  the  Teutonic  char- 
acter, when  it  had  once  burst  the  bonds  of  habitual  or 
traditionary  restraint,  might  seem  to  disdain  easy  and 
effemniate  vice,  and  to  seek  a  kind  of  wild  zest  in  the 
indulgence  of  lust,  by  mingling  it  up  with  all  other  vio- 
lent passions,  rapacity,  and  inhumanity.  Marriage  was 
a  bond  contracted  and  broken  on  the  lightest  occasion. 
Some  of  the  Merovingian  kings  took  as  many  wives, 
either  together  or  in  succession,  as  suited  either  their 
passions  or  their  politics.  Christianity  hardly  interferes 
even  to  interdict  incest.  King  Chlotaire  demanded  for 
the  fisc  the  third  part  of  the  revenue  of  the  churches ; 
some  bishops  yielded ;  one,  Injuriosus,  disdainfully  re- 
fused, and  Chlotaire  withdrew  his  demands.  Yet 
Chlotaire,  seemingly  unrebuked,  married  two  sisters 
at  once.  Charibert  likewise  married  two  sisters :  he, 
however,  found  a  Churchman,  but  that  was  Saint  Ger- 
manus,  bold  enough  to  rebuke  him.  This  rebuke  the 
King  (the  historian  quietly  writes),  as  he  had  already 
many  wives,  bore  with  patience.  Dagobert,  son  of 
Chlotaire,  King  of  Austrasia,  repudiated  his  wife  Gom- 
atrude  for  barrenness,  married  a  Saxon  slave  Mathil- 


396  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

dis,  then  another,  Regnatrude  ;  so  that  he  had  three 
wives  at  once,  besides  so  many  concubines  that  the 
chronicler  is  ashamed  to  recount  them.1  Brunehaut 
and  Fredegonde  are  not  less  famous  for  their  licen- 
tiousness than  for  their  cruelty.  Fredegonde  is  either 
compelled  or  scruples  not  of  her  own  accord  to  take  a 
public  oath,  with  three  bishops  and  four  hundred  nobles 
as  her  vouchers,  that  her  son  was  the  son  of  her  hus- 
band Chilperic.  The  Eastern  right  of  having  a  concu- 
bine seems  to  have  been  inveterate  among  the  later 
.  Frankish  kings :  that  which  was  permitted  for  the  sake 
of  perpetuating  the  race  was  continued  and  carried  to 
excess  by  the  more  dissolute  sovereigns  for  their  own 
pleasure.  Even  as  late  as  Charlemagne,  the  polygamy 
of  that  great  monarch,  more  like  an  Oriental  Sultan 
(except  that  his  wives  were  not  secluded  in  a  harem), 
as  well  as  the  notorious  licentiousness  of  the  females  of 
his  court,  was  unchecked,  and  indeed  unreproved,  by 
the  religion  of  which  he  was  at  least  the  temporal  head, 
of  which  the  Spiritual  Sovereign  placed  on  his  brow 
the  crown  of  the  Western  Empire.  These,  however, 
seem  to  have  been  the  royal  vices  of  men  gradually  in- 
toxicated by  uncontrolled  and  irresponsible  power, 
plunging  fiercely  into  the  indulgences  before  they  had 
acquired  any  of  the  humanizing  virtues  of  advanced 
civilization. 

In  such  times  the  celibacy  or  even  the  continence  of 
the  clergy  was  not  likely  to  be  very  severely  observed. 
The  marriage  of  bishops,  if  not  general,  was  common.3 
Firmilio  had  a  wife  named  Clara.  There  is  an  ac- 

1  "  Nomina  concubinarum  eo  quod  plures  erant,  increvit  huic  chronic* 
inseri." —  Fredegar.  c.  60. 

8  G.  T.  x.  10.  The  son  of  a  bishop  of  Verdun  (vi.  35).  Daughter  of 
bishop  (viii.  32).  Compare  throughout  Loebel,  Gregor  von  Tours. 


CHAP.  II.  MILITARY  ECCLESIASTICS.  397 

count  of  some  strange  cruelties  practised  by  a  bishop's 
wife.1 

Yet  clerical  incontinence  was  not  without  rebuke 
from  above.  Gregory  tells  a  strange  story  of  the  pax 
with  the  consecrated  host  leaping  out  of  a  deacon's 
hands,  and  flying  through  the  air  to  the  altar.  All 
agreed  that  the  clerk  must  be  polluted.  He  confessed, 
it  was  said,  to  several  acts  of  adultery.2 

If,  however,  with  some  exceptions,  more  especially 
this  great  exception  of  the  Frankish  monarchs,  Chris- 
tianity found  an  unexpected  ally  in  the  higher  moral 
tone  of  the  Teutonic  races,  the  religion  in  other  re- 
spects and  throughout  its  whole  sphere  of  conquest 
suffered  a  serious,  perhaps  inevitable  deterioration. 
With  the  world  Christianity  began  rapidly  to  barbar- 
ize. War  was  the  sole  ennobling  occupation.  Even 
the  clergy,  after  striving  for  some  time  to  be  the  pacific 
mediators  between  the  conquerors  and  the  conquered  ; 
to  allay  here  and  there  the  horrors  of  war,  at  times  by 
the  awe  of  their  own  holiness  and  that  of  their  relig- 
ion ;  to  keep  the  churches  during  the  capture  of  a 
city  as  a  safe  sanctuary  for  the  unarmed,  the  helpless, 
the  women,  and  the  children ;  to  redeem  captives  from 
slavery ;  to  mitigate  the  tyranny  of  the  liege  lord,  who 
as  a  Christian,  perhaps  in  the  ardor  of  a  new  convert, 
was  humbly  submissive  to  their  dictates ;  even  the 
clergy  were  at  length  swept  away  by  the  torrent.  In 

1  Of  two  hermits  (viii.  39),  one  was  drunken,  one  had  a  wife ! 

2  One  priest  only,  three  women,  one  of  whom  was  Gregory's  mother, 
witnessed  this  miracle.     Gregory  was  present,  but  the  privilege  was  not 
vouchsafed  to  him.    "  Uni  tantum  preshytero,  et  tribus  mulieribus,  ex 
quibus  una  mater  mea  erat,  haec  videre  licitum  fuit ;  c»teri  non  viderunt. 
Aderam  fateor,  et  ego  huic  festivitati,  sed  hsec  videre  non  merui." — De 
Glor.  Martyr,  vol.  ii.  p.  361. 


398  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

the  fifth  century  we  find  bishops  in  arms,  and  at  the 
head  of  fighting  men  ;  and  though  at  first  the  common 
feeling  protested  against  this  desecration,  though  bear- 
ing arms  was  prohibited  by  the  decrees  of  councils  ; 
yet  where,  as  in  some  cases,  the  wars  in  which  they 
might  engage  were  defensive,  and  for  the  preservation 
of  the  most  sacred  rights  of  man  ;  the  step  once  taken, 
the  sight  once  familiarized  to  this  incongruous  confii- 

o  o 

sion  of  the  armed  warrior  and  the  peaceful  ecclesiastic, 
the  evil  would  grow  up  with  fatal  rapidity.  When 
the  ecclesiastical  dignities  and  honors,  from  their  wealth 
and  authority,  began  to  tempt  the  barbarians,  who 
would  no  longer  leave  them  to  the  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  the  Romans,  those  barbarians  would  be  the  more 
disposed  to  assume  them,  if  they  no  longer  absolute- 
ly imposed  inglorious  inactivity  or  humiliating  patience. 
While  on  the  other  hand,  the  barbarian  invested  in  the 
priesthood  would  more  jealously  justify  himself  for 
thus,  in  one  sense,  descending  from  his  high  place  as  a 
warrior,  by  retaining  some  of  the  habits  and  character 
of  the  free  German  conqueror.  At  length,  though  at 
a  much  later  period,  the  tenure  of  land  implying  mili- 
tary service,  as  the  land  came  more  and  more  into  the 
hands  of  the  clergy,  the  ecclesiastic  would  be  embar- 
rassed more  and  more  by  his  double  function ;  till  at 
length  we  arrive  at  the  Prince  Bishop,  or  the  feudal 
Abbot,  alternately  with  the  helmet  and  the  mitre  on 
his  head,  the  crozier  and  the  lance  in  his  hand ;  now 
in  the  field  in  the  front  of  his  armed  vassals,  now  on 
his  throne  in  the  church  in  the  midst  of  his  chanting 
choir.1 

1  The  first  bishops  who  appeared  in  arms,  and  actually  slew  their  ene- 
mies, shocked  Gregory  of  Tours.    "  Salarius  et  Sagittarius  (nitres  atque 


CHAP.  II.  DONATIONS  TO  THE  CLERGY.  399 

All  tilings  throughout  this  great  social  revolu- 
tion tended  to  advance  and  consolidate  the  sacerdotal 
power.  The  clergy,  whether  as  among  the  Goths  and 
other  Arian  nations,  who  had  their  own  bishops,  or 
among  the  Franks,  where  they  were  reverenced  for 
their  intellectual  as  well  as  their  spiritual  superiority, 
became  more  completely  a  separate  and  distinct  cor- 
porate body,  filling  up  their  own  ranks  by  their  own 
election,  with  less  and  less  regard  even  to  the  assent  (if 
the  laity ;  for  the  barbarous  laity,  of  another  race, 
ceased  to  pretend  to  any  share  of  the  election  of  the 
clergy.  They  possessed  more  completely  the  power 
of  ecclesiastical  legislation.  In  the  'confusion  and 
breaking  up  of  all  ancient  titles  to  property,  more 
would  be  constantly  falling  into  their  hands.  The 
barbarians  for  the  good  of  their  souls  would  abandon 
more  readily  lands  which  they  had  just  acquired  by  the 
sword,  and  of  which  they  had  hardly  learned  the  value ; 
•while  the  Romans,  in  perpetual  danger  of  being  forci- 
bly despoiled,  would  more  easily  make  over  to  the  safer 
custody  of  Churchmen,  lands  which  under  such  protec- 
tion they  might  more  securely  cultivate.  Already  in 
France  the  kings  are  jealous  of  their  vast  acquisitions  ; 
King  Chilperic  hated  the  clergy  for  this  reason,  and 
was  hated  by  them  with  emulous  intensity.  He  com- 

episcopi  qui  non  cruce  ccelesti  muniti,  sed  galea  ant  lancea  sseculari  armati, 
multos  manibus  propriis  quod  pejus  est,  interfecisse  referuntur." — iv.  41 
Compare  v.  17.  —  Merovingian  France  still  offers  the  most  startling  anom- 
alies. "While  thus  advancing  in  power,  their  persons  are  not  sacred  in 
these  wild  times.  The  Bishop  of  Marseilles  is  exposed  to  cruel  usage. 
Even  the  strong  feeling  of  caste  has  lost  its  influence.  They  are  murdered 
and  burned  with  as  little  remorse  as  the  profane.  Gregory,  who  stands  up 
on  some  occasions  for  their  inviolability,  on  others  despondingly  acquiesces 
in  their  fate;  if  not  in  its  justice,  in  its  being  too  much  in  the  common 
order  of  things  to  shock  public  feeling.  Some  of  them,  by  his  own  account, 
richly  deserved  their  doom. 


400  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

plained  that  all  the  wealth  of  the  crown  was  swallowed 
up  by  the  Church.1  The  Church  revenged  itself  by- 
consoling  visions  of  Chilperic's  damnation.  The  juris- 
diction of  the  bishops,  at  first  confined  to  strictly  relig- 
ious concerns,  would  gradually  extend  itself,  perhaps 
from  confidence  in  their  superior  justice,  their  intel- 
lectual superiority,  the  absence  or  the  deficiency  of  the 
administrators  of  the  Roman  law,  under  which  every- 
where the  Romans  still  lived.  Where  other  magistrates 

o 

were  suppressed,  or  had  forfeited  or  abandoned  their 
functions,  they  would  become  the  sole  magistrates. 
Causes  regarding  property,  bequests,  and  others  of  a 
more  intricate  kind,  which  might  perplex  the  greater 
simplicity  of  the  barbaric  codes,  or  embarrass  the 
straightforward  justice  of  barbaric  tribunals,  would  be 
referred  to  their  superior  wisdom.  The  bishops  thus 
gradually  became  more  independent  of  their  college  of 
presbyters;  they  grew  into  a  separate  order  in  the 
State  as  well  as  in  the  Church. 

Nor  can  it  be  wondered  that  partly  in  self  defence, 
partly  for  his  own  relative  aggrandizement,  the  weak- 
er and  conquered  Roman,  conscious  of  his  intellect- 
ual superiority  —  especially  the  Roman  ecclesiastic  — 
should  abuse  his  power,  and  make,  as  it  were,  reprisals 
on  the  rude  and  ignorant  barbarian  conqueror.2  His 
own  religion  would  become  more  and  more  supersti- 
tious, for  the  more  superstitious  the  more  awful.  Art 
and  cunning  are  the  natural  and  constant  weapons  of 

1 "  Aiebat  enim  plerumque,  ecce  pauper  remanet  fiscus  noster,  ecce  divitiae 
nostrae  ad  ecclesias  translate:  nulli  penitus  nisi  soli  episcopi  regnant;  peri 
thonos  noster,  et  translator  est  ad  episcopos  civitatum."  —  vi.  46. 

2  The  Jews  were  their  rivals  in  wealth.  Cantinus,  the  cruel  Bishop  of 
Tours,  has  large  money  dealings  with  the  Jews.  Eufranius  borrows  large 
•urns  of  the  Jews  to  buy  the  same  bishopric.  —  iv.  35. 


CHAP.  II.  DONATIONS  TO  THE  CLERGY.  401 

enfeebled  civilization  against  strong  invading  barbarism. 
Throughout  the  period  the  strongest  superstitious  ter- 
rors cross  the  most  lawless  and  most  cruel  acts.1  There 
are  several  curious  instances  in  the  Frankish  annals  in 
which  the  ecclesiastical  kindred  speaks  more  strongly 
to  the  alarmed  conscience  than  that  of  blood  to  the 
heart.  Those  who  without  compunction,  murder  their 
nearest  relatives,  their  children  or  their  husband,  have 
some  reluctance  to  shed  the  blood  of  those  whom  they 
have  held  over  the  baptismal  font.  Brunehaut  spares 
Borthefrid  because  she  has  been  godmother  to  his 
daughter. 

The  ecclesiastics  must  have  been  almost  more  than 
men,  certainly  far  beyond  their  time,  to  have  resisted 
the  temptation  of  what  would  seem  innocent  or  benefi- 
cent fraud,  to  overawe  or  to  control  the  ignorant  bar- 
barian. 

The  good  Bishop  Gregory  of  Tours  is  himself  con- 
cerned in  an  affair  in  which  the  violence  and  religious 
fears  of  King  Chilperic  singularly  contrast  with  the 
subtlety  of  the  ecclesiastics.  Chilperic  sends  a  letter  to 
St.  Martin  of  Tours  requesting  the  Saint  to  inform  him 
whether  he  might  force  Meroveus  out  of  the  sanctuary. 
It  will  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  received  an  answer ; 
and  that  the  majesty  of  the  sanctuary  suffered  no  loss. 
St.  Martin  of  Tours  was  the  great  oracle  of  the  Franko- 
Latin  kingdoms : 2  kings  flock  to  his  shrine  to  make 
their  offerings,  to  hear  his  judgments.  No  two  cities 

1  A  bishop  of  Rheims  gives  a  safe  conduct  under  oath  on  a  chest  of 
relics ;  but  having  first  stolen  away  the  relics,  holds  the  oath  not  binding. 
—  Fredegar.  c.  97.     Eichhorn  quotes  a  similar  fraud  of  Hatto,  Archbishop 
of  Maintz.  —  i.  p.  514. 

2  Michelet  writes  in  his  flashing  way,  "  Ce  que  Delphes  e"tait  pour  la 
Grece. 

VOL.  i.  26 


402  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HL 

in  the  north  of  France,  not  even  the  royal  residences, 
approached  the  two  great  ecclesiastical  capitals,  Rheims 
and  Tours.  Lands  and  wealth  were  poured  at  the  feet 
of  the  Church.  Dagobert  bestowed  twenty-seven  ham- 
lets or  towns  on  the  monastery  of  St.  Denys.1  His  son 
bestowed  on  St.  Remaclus  of  Tongres  twelve  square 
leagues  in  the  forest  of  Ardennes.2  The  Church  of 
Rheims  possessed  vast  territories,  some  of  which  it  may 
have  received  from  the  careless  and  lavish  bounty  of 
Clovis  himself;  much  more,  by  a  pious  anachronism, 
was  made  to  rest  on  that  ancient  and  venerable  tenure.8 

1  Gesta  Dagobert.  c.  35. 

8  This  subject  is  resumed  when  the  clergy  are  considered  as  co-legislators 
with  the  Teutonic  kings  and  people. 

*  Vit.  St.  Sigebert.  Austras.,  c.  4.  Script  Franc.  See  the  curious  passage 
in  Frodoard,  quoted  by  Michelet. 


CHAP.  m.  OSTROGOTHIC  KINGDOM.  403 


CHAPTER  III. 

THEODORIC  THE  OSTROGOTH. 

THE  Ostrogothic  kingdom  of  Italy  shows  the  earliest 
and  not  the  least  noble  form  of  this  new  so-  Ostrogothio 
ciety,   which  grew    out   of  the   yet   unfused  kinsdom- 
elements   of  the   Latin  and  Teutonic  races.     To  the 
strong  opposition  between  the  barbarian  and    Roman 
parts  of  the  community  was  added  the  almost  strong- 
er contrast  of  religious  difference.     The  Sovereign  of 
Italy,  the  civil  monarch  of  the  Papal  Diocese,  was  an 
Arian. 

Theodoric's  invasion  of  Italy  was  the  migration  of  a 
people,  not  the  inroad  of  an  army.1  His  Goths  were 
accompanied  by  their  wives  and  children,  with  all  the 
movable  property  which  they  had  possessed  in  their 
settlements  in  Pannonia.  Theodoric  had  extorted  from 
the  gratitude  and  the  fears  of  the  Eastern  Emperor,  if 
not  a  formal  grant  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  a  permis- 
sion to  rescue  the  Roman  West  from  the  dominion  of 
Odoacer.  The  Herulian  king,  after  two  great  battles, 
and  a  siege  of  three  years  in  Ravenna,  wrested  from 
Theodoric  a  peace,  by  the  terms  of  which  the  Herulian 
and  the  Gothic  monarchs  were  to  reign  over  Odoacer 

1  Compare,  on  the  number  of  the  Gothic  invaders,  Sartorius,  Essai  sur 
1'Etat  Civil  et  Physique  des  Peuples  d'ltalie  sous  le  Gouvernement  dee 
Goths,  note,  page  242. 


404  LATIN  CHRISTIAITCTY.  BOOK  III. 

Italy,  in  joint  sovereignty.  Such  treaty  could  not  be 
lasting.  Odoacer,  either  the  victim  of  treachery,  or  his 
own  treacherous  designs  but  anticipated  by  the  superior 
craft  and  more  subtle  intelligence  of  Theodoric,  was 
assassinated  at  a  banquet.1  The  Herulians  were  dis- 
possessed of  the  third  portion  of  the  lands  which  they 
had  extorted  from  the  Roman  proprietors,  and  dis- 
persed, some  into  Gaul,  some  into  other  parts  of  the 
Empire.  The  Gothic  followers  of  Theodoric  took  their 
place,  and  Theodoric,  the  Ostrogoth,  commenced  a 
A.D.  493-526.  reign  of  thirty-three  years,  in  which  Italy 
reposed  in  peace  under  his  just  and  vigorous,  and  pa- 
rental administration. 

Throughout  the  conquest,  and  the  establishment  of 
the  Gothic  kingdom,  the  increasing  power  and  impor- 
tance of  the  Christian  ecclesiastics  forces  itself  upon  the 
attention.  They  are  ambassadors,  mediators  in  trea- 
ties, decide  the  wavering  loyalty  or  instigate  the  revolt 
of  cities.  Even  before  the  expiration  of  the  Empire, 
Glycerius  abdicates  the  throne,  and  retires  to  the  bish- 
opric of  Salona,  not,  it  should  seem,  from  any  strong 
Bishops  em-  religious  vocation,  or  weariness  of  political 
ployed.  intrigue.  He  is  afterwards  concerned  in  the 
murder  of  another  of  his  short-lived  successors,  the 
Emperor  Nepos,  and  is  promoted,  as  the  reward  of  his 
services,  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Milan.  Epiphanius, 
the  Bishop  of  Pavia,  bears  to  Theodoric  at  Milan  the 
surrender  and  offer  of  allegiance  from  that  great  city. 

1  The  most  probable  view  of  this  transaction  is,  that  the  Herulian  chief- 
tains, impatient  of  the  equal  dominion  of  the  Goths,  had  organized  a  for- 
midable insurrection,  of  which  Odoacer,  possibly  not  an  accomplice,  wa* 
nevertheless  the  victim.  The  Byzantine  writers,  Procopius,  MaaeUinus 
betray  their  hatred.  Ennodius  and  Cassiodorus  of  course  favor  Theodoric 
Gibbon  declares  against  him. 


CHAP.  III.  BISHOPS  EMPLOYED.  405 

John,  the  Bishop,  was  employed  by  Odoacer  to  nego- 
tiate the  treaty  of  Ravenna.1  Before  this  time,  when- 
ever a  difficult  negotiation  occurred,  Epiphanius  was 
persuaded  to  undertake  it.  He  had  been  ambassador 
from  Ricimer  to  Anthemius,  from  Nepos  to  Euric  the 
Visigoth.  Theodoric  admired  the  dignified  beauty  and 
esteemed  the  saintliness  of  character  in  the  Catholic 
Epiphanius,  and  perhaps  intended  that  his  praises  of 
the  bishop  should  be  heard  in  Pavia,  where  from  his 
virtues  and  charities,  he  enjoyed  unbounded  popular- 
ity :  "  Behold  a  man  whose  peer  cannot  be  found 
throughout  the  West :  he  is  the  great  bulwark  of  Pa- 
via ;  —  to  his  care  I  may  intrust  my  wife  and  children, 
and  devote  myself  entirely  to  war."  2  Epiphanius  was 
permitted  to  plead  the  cause  of  the  Herulians  who  had 
risen  in  arms  in  the  north  of  Italy  after  the  death  of 
Odoacer.  The  eloquence  of  the  Bishop  arrested  the 
inexorable  vengeance  or  justice  of  Theodoric.  He 
was  employed  even  on  a  more  apostolic  mission — to 
rescue  from  slavery  those  who  had  been  sold  or  had 
fled  into  slavery  beyond  the  Alps.  Gundebald  the 
Burgundian  and  his  chieftains  melted  at  the  persuasive 
words  of  Epiphanius,  who  entered  Pavia  at  the  head 
of  6000  bond-slaves,  rescued  by  his  influence  from  sla- 
very. Epiphanius  made  a  third  journey  to  Ravenna, 
to  obtain  a  remission  of  taxes  in  favor  of  his  distressed 
people.3 

The  Ostrogothic  kingdom  was  an  intermediate  state 
between  the  Roman  Empire  and  the  barbarian  mon- 

1  Procop.  1.  i.  c.  i.  p.  9,  Edit.  Bonn. 

2  Ennodii  Vita  Epiphan. 

3  Ennodius  says  of  Epiphanius,  —  "  Inter  dissidentes  principes  solus  esset, 
qui  pace  frueretur  amborum."  —  p.  1011.    He  even  overawed  the  fierce 
Kujjians,  at  one  time  masters  of  Pavia. 


40  G  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  I1L 

union  of  the  archies.     It  was  the  avowed  object  of  Theod- 
ncM  oric  to  fuse  together  the  Teutonic  vigor  with 

the  Roman  civilization,  to  alloy  the  fierceness  of  the 
Gothic  temperament  with  the  social  culture  of  Italy.1 
The  Romans  still  held  many  of  the  chief  civil  offices. 
Liberius,  Symmachus,  Boethius,  Cassiodorus,  were  the 
ministers  of  the  Gothic  king.  Yet  the  two  elements 
of  the  society  had  no  tendency  to  assimilation  or  union , 
the  justice  and  wisdom  of  the  king  might  mitigate,  he 
im  could  not  reconcile  this  discord,  which  could 
only  be  finally  extinguished  by  years  of  mu- 
tual intercourse,  by  intermarriages,  and  above  all  by 
perfect  community  of  religious  faith.  The  Gothic  and 
the  Roman  races  stood  apart  in  laws,  in  usages,  in  civil 
position,  as  well  as  in  character.  Possessors,  by  the 
right  of  conquest,  of  the  one-third  of  the  lands  in 
Italy,  of  which  they  exacted  the  surrender,  and  for 
which  they  tacitly  engaged  to  protect  the  whole  from 
foreign  invasion,2  the  Goths  settled  as  an  armed  aristoc- 
racy among  a  people  who  seemed  content  to  purchase 

1  "  Ii  semper  fuerint  (Gothi,  sc.)  in  laudis  medio  constituti,  ut  et  Ro- 
manorum  prudentiam  caperent,  et  virtutem  gentium  possiderent.  .  .  . 
Consuetude  nostra  feris  mentibus  inseratur  donee  truculentus  animus 
vivere  velle  consuescat."  —  Cassiod.  Var.  Epist.  iii.  23.  In  another  pas- 
sage he  exhorts  the  Goths  to  put  on  the  manners  of  the  toga,  and  to  cast 
off  those  of  barbarism.  "  Intelligite  homines  non  tarn  corporea  vi  quam 
ratione  pneferri." — Lib.  iii.  Epist.  17.  When  he  invaded  Gaul,  Theodoric 
declared  himself  the  protector  of  the  Romans:  "Delectamur  jure  Romano 
vivere  quos  annis  vindicamus.  .  .  .  Nobis  propositum  e«t,  Deo  juvante, 
sic  vivere,  ut  subject!  se  doleant  nostrum  dominium  tardius  acquisisse."  — 
iii.  43.  But  the  most  clear  and  distinct  indication  of  his  views  is  in  the 
formula  for  the  appointment  of  the  Count  of  the  Goths :  "  Unum  vos 
amplectatur  vivendi  votum,  quibus  unum  esse  constat  imperium."  The 
anonym.  Vales,  says  that  the  poor  Roman  (miser)  affected  to  be  a  Goth, 
the  rich  (utilis)  Goth  to  be  a  Roman. 

8  "  Vos  autem  Romani  magno  studio  Gothos  diligere  debetis,  qui  in  pace 
numerosos  vobis  populos  faciunt,  et  universam  rempublicam  per  bella  de- 
feudunt."  —  Cassiod.  vii.  3. 


CHAP.  III.  DIVISION  OF  LANDS.  407 

their  security  at  the  price  of  one  third  of  their  posses- 
sions.    This  transfer  was  carried  on  with  nothing  of 

O 

the  violence  and  irregularity  of  plunder  or  confiscation, 
but  with  the  utmost  order  and  equity.  It  was,  in  truth, 
but  a  new  form  of  the  law  of  conquest,  which  Rome 
had  enforced,  first  upon  Italy,  afterwards  on  the  worl.l. 
Nor  was  it  an  obsolete  and  forgotten  hardship,  the  ex- 
pulsion of  a  free,  and  flourishing,  and  happy  peasantry 
from  their  paternal  homesteads,  and  hereditary  fields  ; 
they  were  only  like  those  more  partial  no  doubt,  but 
more  cruel  ejectments,  when  the  conquering  Triumvir, 
during  the  later  republic,  confiscated  whole  provinces, 
and  apportioned  them  among  his  own  sol-  Division  of 
diery.1  The  followers  of  Odoacer  had  already, lands" 
if  not  to  so  great  an  extent,  enforced  the  same  surren- 
der, and  the  Goth  only  expelled  the  Herulian  from  his 
newly  acquired  estate.  Large  tracts  in  Italy  were  ut- 
terly desolate  and  uncultivated  —  almost  the  whole 
under  imperfect  culture.2  This,  in  the  best  times  of 
the  Roman  aristocracy,  had  been  the  natural  and  re- 
corded consequence  of  the  vast  estates  accumulated  by 
one  proprietor,  and  cultivated  by  slaves  or  at  best  by 
poor  me'tayers,  and  was  now  aggravated  by  the  general 
ruin  of  that  aristocracy,  the  difficulty  of  maintaining 
slaves,  and  the  effects  of  long  warfare.  This  revolu- 
tion at  least  assisted  in  breaking  up  these  overgrown 
properties,  combining  as  it  did  with  constant  aliena- 


1  Theodoric  considered  that  he  had  succeeded  to  the  right  of  the  Roman 
people  in  apportioning  land :  he  prohibited  the  forcible  entrance  upon  farms 
without  authority. 

2  "Vides  universa  Italiae  loca  originariis  viduata  cultoribus."     Read  the 
whole  speech  of  Theodoric  to  Epiphanius  of  Pavia  on  the  desolation  espec- 
ially of  Liguria.  —  Ennod.  Vit.  p.  1014.     "Latifundia  perdidere  Italiam," 
the  axiom  of  all  the  Roman  economists. 


408  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

tions  to  the  Church,  and  afterwards  to  monasteries. 
Agriculture  in  Italy  received  a  new  impulse,1  the  more 
necessary,  as  it  ceased  to  command  foreign  resources. 
The  harvests  of  the  East,  and  of  Egypt  and  Libya, 
had  long  been  assigned  to  the  maintenance  of  the  new 
capital ;  and  Western  Africa,  desolated  by  the  Van- 
dals, no  longer  poured  in  her  supplies.  Theodoric 
watched  with  parental  solicitude  the  progress  of  agri- 
culture, and  the  irregular  and  uncertain  supplies  of 
corn  to  his  Italian  subjects,  who  were  now  thrown  on 
their  own  resources.  His  correspondence  is  full  of 
orders  on  this  important  subject.  Italy  began  to  ex- 
port corn.  The  price,  both  of  corn  and  wine,  fell  to  a 
very  moderate  amount.2 

The  Gothic  king  claimed  all  the  imposts  formerly 
paid  to  the  imperial  treasury  ;  the  Curias  were  still  re- 
sponsible for  the  collection,  but  Theodoric  inculcated 
moderation  in  the  exaction  of  the  imperial  claims.3 
The  Goths  appear  to  have  been  liable  to  the  same 
taxes  with  the  Romans.4  The  clergy  had  as  yet  no 
Theodoric.  immunities.  Theodoric  himself  aspired  to  be 
the  impartial  sovereign  of  both  races.  In  him  met 

1  It  is  curious  that  most  of  these  edicts  prohibit  exportation.     See  Cassi- 
odorus.    Var.  Lib.  i.  31,  34,  35  (a  strange  document  in  point  of  style). 
Lib.  ii.  12,  is  a  prohibition  of  the  export  of  bacon,  an  important  article  of 
food;  20  gives  orders  to  send  corn  from  Ravenna  to  Liguria,  which  was 
Buffering  famine.    The  Gothic  army  in  Gaul  was  supported  by  the  prov- 
ince, not  from  Italy  (iii.  41,  2),  and  during  a  famine  Southern  Italy  and 
Sicily  relieved  Gaul  (iv.  5,  7).    On  the  other  hand,  Theodoric  endeavored 
to  obtain  corn  from  Spain  for  the  supply  of  Rome ;  but  it  seems  the  dealers 
had  found  a  better  market  in  Africa  (v.  35). 

2  "  Sexaginta  modios  triticorum  in  solidum  ipsius  tempore  fuerunt,  et 
vinum   triginta  amphora   in   solidum." — Anon.  Vales.     Without  ascer- 
taining the  exact  relative  value,  we  may  infer  that  these  were  unusually  low 
prices. 

«  Var.  i.  19,  iv.  19. 
«  iv.  U. 


CHAP.  in.  THEODORIC.  409 

and  blended  the  Roman  and  the  Goth :  in  peace  he  ex- 
changed the  Gothic  military  dress  for  the  purple  of  the 
Roman  Emperor.1  He  preserved  the  ancient  titles  both 
of  the  Republic  and  of  the  Empire.  He  appointed 
Consuls,  Patricians,  Quaestors,  as  well  as  Counts  of 
largesses,  of  provinces,  and  some  of  the  more  servile 
titles  of  the  East.2  The  conqueror  was  earnestly  de- 
sirous to  secure  for  his  Italian  subjects  the  blessings  of 
peace :  though  his  arms  were  employed  in  Gaul  for 
thirty  out  of  thirty-three  years  of  his  reign,  Italy, 
under  his  dominion,  escaped  the  ravages  of  war.3  The 
police  was  so  strict  throughout  Italy,  that  merchants 
thronged  from  all  parts.  A  man  might  leave  his  silver 
or  gold  as  safely  on  his  farm  as  in  a  walled  city.4  He 
bequeathed  peace  to  his  successors ;  he  en-  Peace  of 
couraged  all  the  arts  of  peace.  The  posts  Italy' 
were  arranged  on  a  new  and  effective  footing.5  The 
great  roads,  the  bridges,  the  ruined  walls,  and  falling 
buildings  were  restored  to  their  ancient  strength  and 
splendor.  Verona,  Pavia,6  above  all  Ravenna,  were 
adorned  with  new  palaces,  porticos,  baths,  amphithea- 
tres, basilicas,  and,  doubtless,  churches.  In  the  latter 


1  Muratori,  Annal.  d'  Italia,  iv.  380. 

2  See  the  sixth  book  of  the  Epistles. 

8  Ennodius  says,  in  Vit.  Epiphan.  —  "  Cujus  post  triumphum  spoliatum 
vagina  gladium  nullus  aspexit."  —  p.  1012.  "Ergo  praeclarus  et  borne 
voluntatis  in  omnibus,  qui  regnavit  annos  xxxiii.  cujus  temporibus  felicitas 
est  sequuta  Italiam  per  annos  xxx.  ita  ut  etiam  pax  pergentibus  esset 
(Pergentibus  successoribus  ejus)."  —  Wagner's  note,  Anonym.  Vales. 

4  Anonym.  Vales. 

5  Epist.  i.  29,  iv.  47,  v.  5. 

6  Anonym.  Vales.    This  writer,  in  his  admiration  of  the  golden  age  of 
Theodoric,  declares  that  he  did  not  repair  the  gates  of  the  cities,  as,  being 
oow  never  closed,  the  inhabitants  entering  and  going  out  by  night  as  well 
as  by  day,  they  had  become  of  no  use.    "  Hoc  per  totam  Italiam  augurium 
habebat,  ut  nulli  civitati  portas  faceret." 


410  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH 

city  Theodoric  avowedly  aimed  at  rivalling  the  magnif- 
icence of  Rome ;  but  Rome  was  not  plundered  or  sac- 
rificed to  the  new  capital.  The  care  of  Theodoric 
was  extended  to  the  restoration  of  her  stately  but  in- 
jured edifices.1  The  Cloacae,  which  excited  the  won- 
der of  the  barbarians,  and  distinguished  Rome  from  all 
other  cities,  were  to  be  repaired  entirely  at  the  public 
cost.2  The  water  from  the  aqueducts  was  no  longer  to 
be  directed  to  private  use,  for  the  turning  of  mills,  or 
irrigation  of  gardens,  but  devoted  to  the  general  bene- 
fit of  the  citizens.3  The  prefect  of  the  city  and  his 
lieutenant,  the  Count  of  Rome,  and  the  public  archi- 
tect 4  were  especially  charged  to  keep  up  the  forests  of 
stately  buildings,  the  statues  which  peopled  the  city, 
the  herds  of  equestrian  images.6  In  these  terms  the 
barbarians  expressed  their  astonishment  at  the  yet  in- 
exhausted  treasures  of  art  in  the  imperial  city.  The 
florid  panegyric  of  Theodoric  describes  the  aged  city 
as  renewing  her  youth ;  noble  edifices  were  completed 
nearly  as  soon  as  planned.  Theodoric  is  almost  a  second 
Romulus  —  as  it  is  greater  to  ward  off  the  fall,  than  to 
have  commenced  the  foundations  of  a  city.6 

i  Var.  i.  21.    Compare  ii.  34. 

3  Var.  iii.  30. 
«  Var.  iii.  31. 

4  On  the  general  policy  of  Theodoric  in  this  respect,  "  Decet  principem 
cura,  quse  ad  rempublicam  praestat  augendam,  et  vere  dignum  cst  regem 
aedificiis  palatia  decorare.     Absit  enim  ut  ornatui  cedanius  veterum,  qui 
impares  non  sumus  beatitudini  sseculorum.'1 — Var.  i.  6.    "Decora  facies 
iniperii,  testimonium  preconiale  regnorum."  —  Var.  vii.  5. 

6  "  Mirabilis  sylva  msenium,  populus  statuarum,  greges  equorum."  — 
Var.  vii.  5:  compare  vii.  13,  16.  These  latter  are  the  formularies  for  the 
appointment  of  the  Comes  Romanus,  and  the  architect  of  the  public  works. 
—  Ennod.  apud  Sirmond.  p.  967. 

8  Theodoric  commands  marmorarii  to  be  sent  from  Ravenna  to  Rome: 
these  were  workers  in  mosaic  (we  hear  nothing  of  painters  or  sculptors), 
which  art  the  barbarians  seem  to  have  especially  admired.  "  Qui  eximii 


CHAP.  III.  THEODOEIC.  411 

When  Theodoric  appeared  in  Rome,  the  Emperor 
might  seem  to  revive  in  greater  power  and  majesty 
than  he  had  displayed  since  the  days  of  Theodosius  the 
Great.  The  largesses  of  corn  were  distributed,  though 
to  a  smaller  population,  with  a  liberality  which  rivalled 
the  earlier  days  of  the  Empire.1 

Though  himself  taking  no  pleasure  in  savage  or  idle 
amusements,  the  barbaric  king,  considering  such  sub- 
'ects  not  quite  beneath  the  care  of  the  sovereign,  per- 
haps not  without  some  politic  design  to  occupy  the 
proud  and  turbulent  metropolis,  indulged  his  subjects 
with  their  ancient  spectacles,  in  such  pomp  as  to  recall 
the  famous  names  of  Trajan  and  Valentinian.2  The 
gladiators  alone  had  been  suppressed  by  the  influence 
of  Christian  opinion ;  and  even  if  humanity  had  not 
won  this  triumph,  Rome  had  no  longer  barbarian  cap- 
tives, whom  she  could  devote  to  the  carnage  of  these 
mimic  wars.  But  the  arena  was  still  open  to  the  com- 
bats of  wild  beasts.3  The  pantomimes,  of  which  alone 
Theodoric  speaks  with  interest,  were  frequent  and 
splendid.4  The  chariot  races  were  attended  with  all 
the  old  passionate  ardor,  and  the  contending  colors 
were  espoused  with  fanatic  zeal  by  the  opposite  factions, 

divisa  conjungunt  et  venis  colludentibus  illigata  naturalem  faciem  lauda- 
biliter  mentiantur.  .  .  .  De  arte  veniat,  quod  vincat  naturam,  discoloria 
crusta  marmorum  gratissima  picturarum  varietate  texantur."  — Var.  i.  6. 

1  Anonym.  Vales.     Compare  the  formulary  for  the  appointment  of  the 
Prsefectus  annonae. 

2  Anonym.  Vales.    The  edicts  are  prefaced  with  a  kind  of  apology. 
'  Licet  inter  gloriosas  reipublicae  curas  .  .  .  pars  minima  videatur,  princi- 
pem  de  spectaculis  loqui,  tamen  pro  amore  reipublicse  Romans  non  pigebit 
has  cogitationes  intrare." — Var.  i.  20. 

8  Var.  v.  42,  where  the  feritas  spectaculi  is  reproved.  Among  Theodoric's 
buildings  is  mentioned  an  amphitheatre  at  Pavia. 

4  He  calls  it  a  wonderful  art,  which  is  often  more  expressive  than  lan- 
guage. —  Var.  i.  20. 


412  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

on  which  the  Sovereign,  though  he  did  not  condescend 
to  take  a  part,  looked  with  indulgence.  He  allowed  the 
utmost  license  to  the  expression  of  public  feeling,  and 
strongly  reproved  the  officious  or  haughty  interference 
of  the  Senate  for  attempting  to  repress  this  legitimate 
freedom.1 

But   Theodoric,  in   his   religious   character,  is   the 
chief  object   of  our  study.      The  Christian 


religious  .  .     -,      ,    ,  .  ,  .1 

rule.  sovereign  must  nnd  his  proper  place  in  the 

history  of  Christianity.  The  King  of  the  Ostrogoths 
not  merely  held  together  in  peace  and  amity  the  two 
races,  the  Roman  and  the  Barbarian,  but  even  the 
Orthodox  and  the  Arian  reposed  throughout  his  reign, 
if  not  in  friendly  quiet,  at  least  without  any  violation 
of  the  public  peace. 

It  was  fortunate,  perhaps,  that  in  a  state  so  divided, 
the  Sovereign  was  of  the  religion  of  the  few.  He 
escaped  the  temptation  to  persecute,  since  it  would 
have  been  idle  to  suppose  that  he  could  persuade  or 
compel  so  strong  a  majority  to  embrace  his  detested 
opinions.  If  the  wise  spirit  of  toleration  had  not  led 
him  to  moderate  measures,  the  good  sense  of  the 
Sovereign  would  have  compelled  him  to  respect  the 
inveterate  tenets  of  the  larger,  the  more  intellectually 
powerful  part  of  his  subjects.  Still,  though  his  Byzan- 
tine education  might  have  warned  Theodoric  against 
the  danger,  if  the  Sovereign  should  plunge  too  deeply 
into  ecclesiastical  affairs,  his  forbearance  was  neverthe- 

1  "  Mores  autem  graves  in  spectaculo  quis  requirit  ?  Ad  circum  nesciunt 
convenire  Catones."  —  i.  27.  It  is  evident  that  the  senate  and  the  people 
had  taken  different  sides.  The  senators  are  reproved  for  introducing  their 
armed  slaves  among  the  audience.  On  the  other  hand,  the  complaint  of  a 
senator  of  personal  insult  was  to  be  carried  before  the  praetorian  prefect. 
There  is  a  remarkable  tone  of  good-humored  moderation  in  all  the  edicts  • 
compare  Var.  i.  27,  30  to  33. 


CHAP.  III.  THEODOKIC'S  IMPARTIALITY.  413 

less  extraordinary,  considering  the  all-searching,  all- 
pervading  activity  of  his  administration ;  and  that  the 
religious  supremacy  had  been  so  long  a  declared  pre- 
rogative of  that  Imperial  power,  which  had  now  passed 
into  his  hands.  Imperial  edicts  since  the  days  of 
Constantine  had  been  solicited,  respected,  enforced  by 
the  hierarchs  so  long  as  they  spoke  the  dominant 
doctrine ;  they  had  become  part  of  the  code  of  the 
Empire ;  even  when  adverse  to  the  prevailing  opinion, 
they  had  been  always  supported  by  one  faction  at  least, 
and  received  with  awe  by  the  more  indifferent  multi- 
tudes. The  doctrine  that  the  clergy,  the  bishops,  or 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  were  the  sole  legislators  of  Chris- 
tianity, was  so  precarious  and  undefined,  that  we  still 
cannot  altogether  withhold  our  admiration  from  the 
wisdom  of  Theodoric.  The  Arianism,  indeed,  of  the 
Goths  had  not  the  fresh  ardor  or  burning  zeal  of  recent 
proselytism.  It  was  a  kind  of  religious  accident,  arising 
out  of  their  first  conversion,  which  happened  to  take 
place  during  the  reign  of  an  Arian  Emperor,  and 
through  Arian  missionaries.  It  had  settled  into  a  quiet 
hereditary  faith.  There  was  no  peculiar  congeniality 
in  its  tenets  with  the  Teutonic  mind,  which  was  rather 
disposed  to  receive  what  it  was  taught  with  implicit 
faith  ;  and,  though  no  doubt  averse  to  the  subtleties  of 
the  Greek  theology,  neither  comprehended,  nor  cared  to 
comprehend,  these  controversies.  It  was  content  to 
adhere  to  the  original  creed,1  or,  possibly,  might  feel 

1  Salvian  is  inclined  to  judge  the  heresy  of  the  barbarians  with  charity; 
perhaps  that  he  might  inveigh  more  fiercely  against  the  vices  of  the 
Catholic  Romans.  "  Barbari  quippe  homines,  immo  potius  hirnanae  erudi- 
tionis  expertes,  qui  nihil  omnino  sciunt.  nisi  quod  a  doctoribus  suis  audiunt. 
quod  audiunt,  sic  sequuntur  .  .  .  haeretici  ergo  sunt,  sed  non  scientes."  — 
De  Gubernat.  Dei,  lib.  v. 


414  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

some  pride  in  differing  from  the  abject  race,  over 
it  asserted  its  civil  and  military  superiority. 

The  serene  impartiality  of  Theodoric's  government 
Tbeodorfc'8  in  religious  affairs  extorts  the  praise  of  the 
tapartuiitjr.  most  zealous  Catholic.1  He  attempted  nothing 
against  the  Catholic  faith.  Towards  the  close  of  the 
Gothic  monarchy,  the  royal  ambassadors  to  Belisarius 
defied  their  enemies  to  prove  a  case  in  which  the 
Goths  had  persecuted  the  Catholics.2  -Theodoric  treat- 
ed the  Pope,  the  Bishops,  and  Clergy,  with  irrave 
respect:  in  the  more  distinguished,  such  as  Epipha- 
nius,  he  ever  placed  the  highest  esteem  and  confidence. 
We  shall  behold  him  showing  as  much  reverence, 
and  even  bounty,  to  the  Church  of  St.  Peter,  as 
though  he  had  been  a  Catholic.  The  poor  who  were 
dependent  on  that  Church  were  maintained  by  his 
liberality.8  The  Arian  clergy  also  shared  in  the 
tolerant  sentiments  of  their  King.  Of  their  position, 
character,  influence ;  of  the  churches  they  built  or  oc- 
cupied ;  of  their  services,  of  their  processions,  of  their 
ceremonies ;  of  any  aggression  or  intrigue  on  their 
part ;  of  any  collision,  which  we  might  have  supposed 
inevitable  with  the  Latin  clergy,  history,  and  history 
entirely  written  by  the  Catholics,  is  totally  silent ;  and 
that  silence  is  the  best  testimony,  either  to  their  unex- 
ampled moderation,  as  the  religious  teachers  of  the  few 
indeed,  but  those  few  the  conquerors  and  rulers,  or  to 
the  wiser  policy  of  the  King,  which  could  constrain  even 

1  u  Nihil  contra  religionem  catholicam  tentans,"  thus  writes  the  anonj- 
mous  historian,  himself  a  devont  Catholic.  Ennodius,  in  praising  the 
religion,  forgets  the  Arianism  of  Theodoric.  —  Paneg.  p.  971.  Anonym. 
Vales. 

*  Procop.  de  bell.  Gothic,  ii.  c.  6. 

•  Procop.  Hist.  Arcan.,  p.  145,  edit.  Bonn. 


CHAP.  IH.  THEODORIC'S  IMPARTIALITY.  415 

honest  religious  zeal.  Theodoric  himself  adhered  firmly 
but  calmly  to  his  native  Arianism ;  but,  all  the  conver- 
sions seem  to  have  been  from  the  religion  of  the  King ; 
even  his  mother  became  a  Catholic  ;l  and  some  other 
distinguished  persons  of  the  court  embraced  a  different 
creed  without  forfeiting  the  royal  favor.2  Theodoric 
was  the  protector  of  Church  property,3  which  he  him- 
self increased  by  large  grants.4  This  property,  with 
some  exceptions,  was  still  h'able  to  the  common  im- 
posts. His  wise  finance  would  admit  no  exemptions, 
but  in  gifts  he  was  prodigal  to  magnificence.  The 
clergy  were  amenable  to  the  common  law  of  the 
Empire,  and  were  summoned  before  the  royal  courts 
(the  stern  law  would  not  be  eluded)  for  all  ordinary 
crimes  ; 5  but  all  ecclesiastical  offences  were  left  to  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities.6  Nor,  although  the  Herulian 

1  "  Mater  Theodorici,  Erivileva  dicta,  catholica  quidem  erat  qua  in 
baptismo  Eusebia  dicta."  — Anonym.  Vales. 

2  Note  of  Yalesius  to  Anonym,  at  the  end  of  Wagner's  Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  page  399.  — Var.  x.  34  a.  26.    These  cases  belong  to  the  suc- 
cessors of  Theodoric.    With  Gibbon,  I  reject  the  story  of  his  beheading  a 
Catholic  priest  for  turning  Arian  in  order  to  gain  his  favor!     It  is  most 
probable  that  the  man  had  been  guilty  of  some  capital  crime,  and  sought 
to  save  his  life  by  apostacy.    It  was  not  improbably  either  Theodoras  or 
Count  Odoin,  who  had  formed  a  conspiracy  against  him  in  Rome,  and  was 
beheaded  for  his  treason :  compare  Hist.  Miscel.  p.  612. 

8  Var.  iv.  17,  orders  to  his  general  Ibas  in  Gaul  to  restore  certain  lands 
to  the  Church  of  Xarbonne. 

*  "  If,"  he  writes  to  Count  Geberic,  "  in  our  piety,  we  bestow  lands  on 
the  church,  we  ought  to  maintain  rigidly  what  she  possesses  already."  — 
Var.  iv.  20. 

5  Januarius,  Bishop  of  Salona,  is  sued  for  a  debt,  though  for  lights  for 
the  church ;  a  Bishop  Peter  for  the  restitution  of  an  inheritance ;  the  Priest 
Laurence  for  sacrilegious  violation  of  a  tomb  in  search  of  treasure ;  Antony, 
Bishop  of  Pola,  for  the  restitution  of  a  house :  compare  Du  Roure,  Hist, 
de  Theodoric,  i.  p.  358. 

6  See  the  celebrated  privilege  accorded  to  the  clergy  of  Rome  by  Atha- 
laric. — Var.  viii.  24.     This,  however,  was  no  more  than  arbitration.    "Ex- 
ceptos  a  tramite  justitise  non  patimur  inveniri."  —  Cassiod.  ii.  29.    Yet 


416  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  m. 

Odoacer  had  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  con- 
firming the  Papal  election,  did  Theodoric  interfere  in 
those  elections  until  compelled  by  the  sanguinary 
tumults  which  distracted  the  city.  Even  then  he  inter- 
fered only  as  the  anxious  guardian  of  the  public  peace, 
and  declined  the  arbitration  between  the  conflicting 
claims,  which  both  parties,  hoping  for  his  support, 
endeavored  to  force  on  the  reluctant  monarch. 

The  feuds  of  the  Roman  clergy,  which  broke  out  on 
the  customary  occasion  of  the  election  of  a  new  Pope, 
and  brought  them  to  the  foot  of  their  Arian  sovereign, 
A.D.  498.  may  b6  traced  back  to  a  more  remote  source. 
H^tu^for  Anastasius,  as  has  been  seen,  during  his  short 
the  Popedom.  pOntificate,  had  deviated  into  the  paths  of 
peace  and  conciliation.  He  had  endeavored  by  mild- 
ness, and  by  no  important  concession  (he  insisted  not 
on  the  condemnation  of  Acacius),  to  reunite  the 
Churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople.  This  un- 
wonted policy  had  apparently  formed,  two  parties  in 
the  Roman  clergy,  one  inclined  to  the  gentler  measures 
of  Anastasius,  the  other  to  the  sterner  and  more  inex- 
orable tone  of  his  predecessors.  Each  party  elected 
Dee.ia.  their  Pope,  the  latter  the  Deacon  Symma- 
A.D.  499.  chus,  the  former  the  Archpresbyter  Lau- 
rentius.1  The  rival  Pontifls  were  consecrated  on  the 
same  day,  one  in  the  Lateran  Church,  the  other  in  that 
of  St.  Mary.  At  the  head  of  the  party  of  Laurentius, 
stood  Festus  or  Faustus  Niger,  the  chief  of  the  Senato- 
rial order.  He  had  been  the  ambassador  of  Theodoric 
at  Constantinople,  to  demand  the  acknowledgment  of 

Theodoric,  from  respect,  was  unwilling  to  punish  a  priest    "  Scelus  quod 
Doa  pro  sacerdotal!  honore  relinquimus  impunitum."  — iv.  18. 
1  Anastasius  died  Nov.  17.  —  Muratori,  sub  ann. 


CHAP.  III.     CONTESTED  ELECTION  FOR  POPEDOM.  417 

the  Goth  as  King  of  Italy.  He  had  succeeded  in  his 
mission ;  perhaps  had  been  prevailed  upon  to  attempt 
the  reconciliation  of  the  two  Churches,  either  by  per- 
suading the  acceptance  of  the  Henoticon  by  the  Roman 
clergy,  or  more  probably  on  the  terms  of  compromise 
approved  by  Pope  Anastasius.  The  two  factions  en- 
countered with  the  fiercest  hostility  ;  the  clergy,  the 
senate,  and  the  populace  were  divided ;  the  streets  of 
the  Christian  city  ran  with  blood,  as  in  the  days  of 
republican  strife.1  The  conflicting  claims  of  the  prel- 
ates were  brought  before  the  throne  of  Theodoric. 
The  simple  justice  of  the  Goth  decided  that  the  bishop 
who  had  the  greater  number  of  suffrages,  and  had  been 
first  consecrated,  had  the  best  right  to  the  throne. 
Symmachus  was  acknowledged  as  Pope :  he  held  a 
synod  at  Rome  which  passed  two  memorable  decrees, 
one  almost  in  the  terms  of  the  old  Roman  law,  severely 
condemning  all  ecclesiastical  ambition,  all  canvassing, 
either  for  obtaining  subscriptions,  or  administration 
of  oaths,  or  promises  for  the  papacy  during  the  life- 
time of  the  Pope  ; 2  the  other  declared  the  election  to 
be  in  the  majority  of  the  clergy,  thus  virtually  abro- 
gating the  law  of  Odoacer.  Laurentius  (the  rival 
Pope  was  present  at  this  synod)  subscribed  its  de- 

1  Each  party  charged  the  other  with  these  cruelties.     The  author  of  the 
Hist.  Micell.  asserts  that  Festus  and  Probinus,  of  the  party  of  Laurentius, 
slew  in  the  midst  of  Rome  the  greater  part  of  the  clergy  and  a  great  num- 
ber of  citizens :  a  fragment  of  a  writer  on  the  other  side  (published  by  the 
impartial  Muratori)  ascribes  these  acts  of  violence,  slaughter,  and  pillage, 
with  many  other  vices,  to  Symmachus.     Compare  Annal.  d'  Ital.  sub  arm. 
498. 

2  It  was  the  language  of  the  law  de  Ambitu,  applied  to  ecclesiastical 
distinctions.     It  is  enacted  "  propter   frequentes  ambitus  quorundam,  et 
ecclesiae  puritatem,  vel  populi  collisionem,  qua  molesta  et  iniqua  incom- 
petenter  episcopatum  desiderantium  generavit  aviditas."  — Labbe,  Concil., 
p.  1313. 

VOL.  i.  27 


418  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

crees,1  and  returned  to  the  more  peaceful,  perhaps  to 
a  wise  man,  the  more  enviable  bishopric  of  Xoceva. 
During   this  interval   of  peace,   Theodoric   for  the 


in   first  time  visited  the  imperial  city.     He  was 

Rome.  March  -         _-.  ~  .  .,          i      />  ,  . 

AJ>.  499.  met  by  Pope  Symmachus  at  the  head  of  his 
clergy,  by  the  Senate,  which  still  numbered  some  few 
old  and  famous  names,  Anicii,  Albini,  Marcelli,  and 
by  the  whole  people,  who  crowded  with  demonstra- 
tions of  the  utmost  joy  around  their  barbarian  sover- 
eign. Catholic  and  Arian,  Goth  and  Roman,  mingled 
their  acclamations.  Theodoric  performed  his  devotions 
in  St.  Peter's  with  the  fervor  of  a  Catholic.  In  the 
Senate  he  swore  to  maintain  all  the  imperial  laws,  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  Roman  people.  He  cele- 
brated the  Circensian  games,  in  commemoration  of  all 
his  triumphs,  with  the  utmost  magnificence  ;  ordered  a 
distribution  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  bushels  of  corn 
annually  to  the  poor,  and  set  apart  two  hundred  pounds 
of  gold  for  the  restoration  of  the  imperial  palace.  The 
Bishop  Fulgentius,  witness  of  the  splendor  of  Theod- 
oric's  reception,  breaks  out  into  these  rapturous  words  : 
"  If  such  be  the  magnificence  of  earth,  what  must  be 
that  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  !  "  2  Theodoric  re- 
mained in  Rome  six  months,  and  then  returned  to 
Ravenna. 

During  all  this  period,  and  the  three  or  four  follow- 
ing  years,   the  faction   of  Laurentius   were 

.  . 

watching  their  opportunity  to  renew  the  strife.* 

*  Baronius  sab  ann.     Muratori  has  some  doubts. 

*  Anonym.  Vales.  Vita  B.  Fulgentii. 

*  There  are  two  accounts  of  these  transactions,  —  one  that  of  Anastasius 
Bibliothecarius,  or  the  anonymous  papal  biographer,  favorable  to  Symma- 
chus; the  other  the  anonymous  Veronensis,  published  by  Muratori.    I  have 
endeavored  to  harmonize  them.     Both  agree  that  some  years  elapsed  be 
tween  the  accession  of  Symmachus  and  this  new  contest. 


CHAP.  III.  TUMULTS  IN  SOME.  419 

Fearful  charges  began  to  be  rumored  against  Symma- 
chus.  no  less  than  adultery,1  and  the  alienation  of  the 
property  of  the  see.  Faustus,  his  implacable  adyersary, 
with  the  Consul  Probinus  and  great  part  of  the  Senate, 
supported  these  criminations.  The  accusation  was 
brought  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Theodoric,  sup- 
ported by  certain  Roman  females  of  rank,  who  had 
been  suborned,  it  was  said,  by  the  enemies  of  Symma- 
chus.  Symmachus  was  summoned  to  Rayenna,  and 
confined  in  Rimini.  But  finding  the  preju- Tumultg  ^ 
dices  in  Rayenna  darkening  against  him,  he  Rome- 
escaped  and  returned  to  Rome.  Laurentius  had  also 
secretly  entered  the  capital.  The  sanguinary  tumults 
bet  \veen  the  two  factions  broke  out  with  greater  fury  ; 
priests  were  sacrilegiously  slam,  monasteries  fired,  and 
even  sacred  virgins  treated  with  the  utmost  indignity. 
The  Senate  petitioned  the  King  to  send  a  *•»•  503. 
visitor  to  judge  the  cause  of  the  Pontiff.  A  royal 
commission  was  issued  to  Peter,  Bishop  of  Altino. 
But  instead  of  a  calm  mediator  between  the  conflicting 
parties,  or  an  equitable  judge,  the  visitor  threw  himself 
into  the  party  of  Laurentius.2  The  possessions  of  the 
Church  were,  in  part  at  least,  seized  and  withholden 
from  Symmachus ;  he  was  commanded  to  give  up  the 
slaves  of  his  household  that  they  might  be  examined,3 
it  should  seem,  by  torture  according  to  the  ancient 
usage.4 

1  Anonym.  Veron.  —  confirmed  by  Ennodius,  p.  1366. 

2  Knnod.  Apologet.  pro  Synod-,  p.  987. 

8  This  corresponded  with  the  two  heads  of  accusation.  The  forma 
provided  against  the  alleged  alienation  of  the  church  property,  the  latter 
referred  to  that  of  adultery. 

*  This  is  a  remarkable  fact,  in  the  first  place,  showing  that  slaves  formed 
the  household  of  the  Pope,  and  that,  by  law,  they  were  yet  liable  to  torture. 
This  seems  clear  from  the  words  of  Ennodius,  "Sed,  credo,  replicabitis- 


420  LATIN  CHEISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

Theodoric,  still  declining  the  jurisdiction  over  these 
Synods  of  ecclesiastical  offences,  summoned  a  synod  of 
Italian  prelates  to  meet  at  Rome.  The  synod 
held  two  successive  sessions,  and  throughout  their  pro- 
ceedings may  be  traced  their  consciousness  of  their 
embarrassing  position,  which  is  increased  as  the  reports 
of  these  proceedings  have  passed  through  later  writers.1 
They  were  assembled  under  the  authority  of  a  layman, 
an  heretical  sovereign,  too  powerful  to  be  disobeyed, 
and  acting  with  such  cautious  dignity,  justice,  and 
impartiality  as  to  command  respect.  They  were  as- 
sembled to  judge  the  supreme  Pontiff,  the  Metropolitan 
of  the  west,  the  asserted,  and  by  most  acknowledged, 
head  of  Christendom.  Symmachus  himself  had  the 
prudence  to  express  his  concurrence  in  the  convocation 
of  this  synod.  At  the  first  session  he  set  forth  to  attend 
the  Council.  He  was  attacked  by  the  adverse  party, 
showers  of  stones  fell  around  him ;  many  presbyters 
and  others  of  his  followers  were  severely  wounded  ;  the 
Pontiff  himself  only  escaped  under  the  protection  of  the 
Gothic  guard.  The  final,  named  the  Palmary,  synod 
was  held  in  some  edifice  or  hall  in  the  palace  called  by 
that  name ;  of  this  assembly  the  accounts  are  some- 

veritatem  qnam  sponte  prolate  in  illis  vox  habere  non  poterat,  hanc  diver- 
sis  cruciatibus  e  latebris  suis  religiosus  tortor  exegerat,  ut  dum  pcenis  cor- 
pora solverentur,  qua;  gesta  fuisse  noverat  aniina  non  celaret.''  Ennodius 
is  so  obscure  and  figurative  that  he  may  seem  to  say,  in  the  next  sentence, 
that  this  proceeding  was  illegal,  perhaps  contrary  to  the  canons.  He  ap- 
pears to  consider  it  most  contumelious  that  ecclesiastics  should  be  judged  on 
servile  evidence. 

1  The  whole  question  of  the  number  and  dates  of  the  synods  held  at  this 
time  is  inextricably  obscure.  I  chiefly  follow  Muratori.  The  ?ynodus  pal- 
maris  is  usually  considered  the  fourth.  One,  in  all  probability  two,  were 
held  by  Symmachus  before  this  new  strife.  The  fourth  was  apparently  a 
continuation  of  the  third,  but  held  in  a  different  place  —  unless  the  third 
was  one  held  by  Peter  of  Altino. 


CHAP.  TIL  DECREE  OF  PALMARY  SYNOD.  421 

what  more  full  and  distinct.  Throughout  appears  the 
manifest  struggle  in  the  ecclesiastical  senate  between  the 
duty  of  submitting  to  the  King,  who  earnestly  Decree  of  the 

=>'  .      J   Palmary 

urges  them  to  restore  peace  to  Kome  and  to  Synod. 
Italy,  and  the  reluctance  to  assume  jurisdiction  over 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Some  expressions  intimate  that 
already  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  held  to  be  exempt 
from  all  human  authority,  and  could  be  judged  by  God 
alone.  If  the  Pope  is  called  in  question  the  whole 
episcopacy  of  the  Church  is  shaken  to  its  foundation.1 

Symmachus,  however,  had  the  wisdom  to  suppress 
all  jealousy  of  a  Council 2  whose  authority  alone  could 
completely  clear  him  of  these  formidable  accusations, 
and  which  he  probably  knew  to  be  favorably  impressed 
with  his  innocence.  With  the  full  authority  of  a  synod 
of  one  hundred  and  twenty  bishops  he  resumed  the 
pontifical  throne,  without  having  compromised  his  dig- 
nity by  thus  condescending  to  their  jurisdiction.  In 
the  wording  of  the  sentence  the  Council  claims  at  once 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  confines  the  jus- 
tification of  Pope  Symmachus  to  immunity  and  freedom 
from  censure  before  men ; 8  it  leaves  to  the  secret  coun- 

1  "  In  sacerdotibus  cseteris  potest  si  quid  forte  nutaverit,  reformari :  at  si 
papa  urbis  voeatur  in  dubium,  episcopatus  videbitur,  non  jam  episcopus, 
vacillare."  — Avit.  ad  Senat.  apud  Labbe,  p.  1365.    Avitus  uses  this  argu- 
ment to  the  senators  of  Rome,  "  Nee  minus  diligatis  in  ecclesia  nostra 
sedem  Petri,  quam  in  civitate  apicem  mundi;"  but  Avitus  acknowledges 
all  priests,  even  the  Pope,  to  be  amenable  to  secular  tribunals,  of  course  for 
secular  offences,  "  quia  sicut  subditos  nos  esse  terrenis  potestatibus  j  ubet 
arbiter  coeli ;  staturos  nos  ante  reges  et  principes  in  quacunque  accusatione 
pryedicens;  ita  non  facile  datur  intelligi,  qua  vel  ratione,  vel  lege  ab  in- 
ferioribus  (inferior  in  ecclesiastical  order)  eminentior  judicetur." 

2  "  Judicia  et  iste  voluit,  amavit,  at  t  rax  it,  ingressus  est;  et  quod  posset 
fideli  corda  doloris  justi  aculeis  excitare,  venerando  coucilio  etiam  contra 
Be  si  mereretur,  indulsit."  — Ennod.,  p.  981. 

3  "  Quantum  ad  homines  respicit  (quia  totum  causis  obsidentibus  supe- 
•ius  designitis,  constat  arbitrio  divino  fuisse  dimissum)  sit  immuuis   et 


422  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

sel  of  God  the  ultimate  decision  which  they  might  not 
presume  to  pronounce ; l  nevertheless,  with  inconsis- 
tency, which  it  is  difficult  to  understand,  they  seem  to 
grant  permission  to  the  Pope  to  offer  the  divine  mys- 
teries to  the  Christian  people  in  all  the  churches  of  his 
jurisdiction.2 

Content  with  having  restored  peace  to  the  Roman 
AHaire  of  the  see>  Theodoric  kept  aloof  from  the  religious 
dissensions  which  brooded  in  deepening  dark- 
ness over  the  east.  The  Gothic  king  was  devoting 
himself,  dare  we  not  say,  to  the  more  Christian  office 
of  maintaining  the  peace,  securing  the  welfare,  promot- 
ing the  civilization,  lightening  the  financial  burdens  of 
his  people,3  in  exercising  for  the  benefit  of  Italy,  the 

liber,  et  Christians  plebi  sine  aliqua  de  objectis  oblatione,  in  omnibus 
ecclesiis  suis,  ad  jus  sedis  suse  pertinentibus,  tradat  divina  mysteria."  — 
Labbe,  p.  1325. 

*  Considering  the  horror  in  which  the  crime  of  adultery  was  held  in  an 
ecclesiastic,  we  can  scarcely  suppose,  either  that  the  severe  Theodoric 
would  not  have  driven  him  from  his  presence,  or  that  an  assemblage  of 
prelates  would  have  attempted  to  shield  a  pontiff,  of  precarious  and  dis- 
puted title,  without  full  and  conclusive  evidence  of  his  guiltlessness. 

2  The  decisions  of  this  synod  were  indeed  impeached  by  the  enemies  of 
Symmachus,  and  Ennodius  found  it  necessary  to  vindicate  them  in  an 
apology,  as  he  thought,  eloquent,  and  therefore  in  parts  altogether  unin- 
telligible, at  least  so  as  to  give  but  obscure  glimpses  of  the  facts.  He 
would  seem,  perhaps  only  figuratively,  to  retort  the  charge  of  adultery 
against  the  partisans  of  Laurentius.  —  p.  992.  At  the  close,  Ennodius  per- 
sonifies Rome,  who  has  still  some  compunctious  feelings  for  the  inevitable 
damnation  of  all  her  older  heroes.  "  Qua  Curios,  Torquatos,  Camillos,  quos 
Ecclesia  non  regeneravit,  et  reliquos  misi,  plurimae  prolis  infcecunda  mater, 
ad  Tart  arum,  dum  exhaustis  emarcui  male  fceta  visceribus;  quia  Fabios 
servata  patria  non  redemit,  Deciis  multo  sudore  gloria  parta  nil  pnvstitit 
profligata  est  operum  sine  fide  innocentia:  cruninosis  junctus  est,  a-qui 
observantissimus  Scipio."  — p.  993,  apud  Sirmond. 

*  "  Sensimus  auctas  illationes,  vos  addita  tributa  nescitis.     Ita  utcumque 
§ub  admiratione  perfectum  est,  ut  et  fiscus  crescebat,  et  privata  utilitas 
nulla  damna  perferret." — Var.  ii.  16.    The  panegyric  of  Ennodius  must 
be  read  with  that  reserve  which  these  eloquent  adulations  suggest ;  but,  on 
Hie  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Ennodius  was  a  Catholic  and 
a  bishop. 


CHAP.  III.  AFFAIRS   OF   THE  EAST.  423 

virtues  of  wisdom,  justice,  and  humanity.  His  foreign 
wars  in  Pannonia,  with  a  horde  of  the  Bulgarian  race, 
in  Gaul,  in  defence  of  his  kindred  the  Visigoths  against 

7  O  O 

the  ambitious  Franks,  brought  fame  to  the  king,  with- 
out disturbing  the  repose,  or  interrupting  the  progress 
of  improvement  in  Italy.  Far  different  was  the  state  of 
the  East ;  the  long  religious  quarrel  in  which  the  Em- 
peror Anastasius  had  been  engaged,  had  shaken  its 
throne  to  the  base,  it  needed  only  a  successful  insur- 
rection to  degrade  it  to  still  lower  humiliation. 

The  Pope  Symmachus  watched  no  doubt  with  pro- 
found interest  the  holy  war  which  had  now  broken  out 
in  the  East.  The  polemic  controversies  had  become  the 
causes  or  pretexts  of  revolt  and  battles.  The  formid- 
able Scythian  Vitalianus  (with  whom  Theodoric  had 
some  political  connection  on  account  of  the  hostilities 
in  which  he  had  been  involved  on  the  Dacian  frontier 
with  the  Eastern  empire)  had  raised  the  standard  of 
rebellion  and  of  orthodoxy  against  the  aged  Anastasius. 
Symmachus  did  not  live  to  witness  the  sad  latter  years 
of  the  Emperor  Anastasius ;  the  revolt  of  Vitalianus  ; 
the  hollow  peace  on  the  hard  conditions  of  religious 
submission  ;  the  full  acceptance  of  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  the  restoration  of  the  exiled  Catholic  Bishops, 
and  the  summoning  an  (Ecumenic  Council  at  Heraclea. 
His  successor  Hormisdas a  reaped  the  fruits  of  the  hu- 
miliation of  the  eastern  Emperor,  and  be-PopeHor. 
came,  though  at  first  the  vassal,  at  last  the  misdas- 
humble  siibject  of  the  Arian  Theodoric,  the  dictator  of 
the  religion  of  the  world.  Anastasius  in  his  helpless 
state  souo-ht  the  mediation  not  of  the  civil  but  of  the 

O 

religious   sovereign    of  Italy.      He   might  justly   fear 
1  Hormisdas,  Pope  from  July,  514,  to  Aug.  6,  523. 


424  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  in. 

».o.  6W.  Theodoric,  himself  had  once  some  years  be- 
fore entered  into  suspicious  alliance  with  Clovis  the 
Frank,  he  had  meditated  or  threatened  a  descent  on  the 
coast  of  Italy.  The  Emperor  addressed  a  letter  to 
Hormisdas,  the  fame  of  whose  mild  disposition  tempt- 
ed him  to  renew  a  correspondence  broken  off  by  the 
harshness  of  former  Popes.  But  Hormisdas,  while  he 
warmly  approved  the  Emperor's  disposition  to  peace 
and  unity,  declined  this  flattery  at  the  expense  of  his 
predecessors.  Yet,  on  the  whole,  the  language  of  the 
Pope's  reply  was  moderate,  neither  dissembling  nor  as- 
serting in  too  haughty  terms  the  pretensions  of  his  See. 
The  proposed  Council  of  Heraclea  came  to  nothing  ;  a 
Council  in  the  East,  under  present  circumstances,  suit- 
ed the  policy  neither  of  the  Pope,  nor  of  the  Emperor.1 
jniy  s,  sis.  Four  ambassadors,  the  Bishops  Ennodius  and 
Fortunatus,  the  Presbyter  Venantius,  with  Vitah's  a 
Papal  Em-  deacon,  set  forth  in  the  name  of  Pope  Hor- 

Uwy  to  Con-        .    .  _.  •          i  mi      •      • 

misdas  to  Constantinople.      1  heir  instructions 


are  extant,  a  remarkable  manual  of  ecclesiastical  diplo- 
macy in  a  nice  and  difficult  affair.  In  the  question- 
able and  divided  state  of  the  Eastern  clergy,  espe- 
cially of  Constantinople,  as  to  orthodoxy,  the  ambas- 
sadors were  to  receive  their  personal  advances  with 
decent  courtesy,  lest  the  episcopal  character  should  be 
lowered  in  the  estimation  of  the  laity  ;  but  to  avoid  all 
intimate  intercourse  with  men,  who  might  at  least  be 
heretics;  to  receive  no  presents,  not  even  provisions, 
only  means  of  conveyance  ;  to  incur  no  obligations,  and 
to  decline  all  invitations  to  feasts,  until  they  could  all 

1  The  story  in  Theophanes  as  to  the  perfidy  of  Anastasius  in  these  pro- 
ceedings, is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  whole  course  of  events,  as  ap- 
pears from  existing  documents. 


CHAP.  III.    PAPAL  EMBASSY  TO  CONSTANTINOPLE.          425 

meet  together  at  the  great  feast  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
In  Constantinople  they  were  to  go  at  once  to  the  lodg- 
ings provided  by  the  Emperor,  but  to  avoid  all  inter- 
course with  their  own  partisans,  till  they  had  presented 
their  credentials  to  the  Emperor.1  Besides  these  cre- 
dentials they  were  armed  with  letters  to  Vitalianus, 
letters  however  so  cautiously  worded,  that  they  might 
acknowledge  the  possession  of  them,  and  though  stead- 
ily declining  to  surrender  them  to  the  Emperor,  might 
permit  them  to  be  read  to  Vitalianus  in  the  presence  of 
an  imperial  commissioner.  Their  instructions,  how 
they  were  to  fix  the  wavering  Emperor,  and  extort 
concession  after  concession,  are  marked  with  the  same 
subtle  and  dexterous  policy.  They  were  to  demand, 
I.,  his  unequivocal  assent  to  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don,  and  to  the  letters  of  Pope  Leo.  If  he  yielded 
this  point,  they  were  to  express  their  gratitude  and 
kiss  his  breast,  and  then,  II.,  to  require  him  to  demand 
the  same  assent  from  all  the  clergy  of  the  East.  If 
he  should  assert  the  general  orthodoxy  of  the  clergy, 
and  their  disposition  to  quiet  submission,  if  affairs  had 
not  been  thrown  into  confusion  by  certain  unadvised  let- 
ters of  Pope  Symmachus,  they  were  to  declare  that  those 
letters,  now  in  their  hands,  contained  only  general  ex- 
hortations to  accept  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  They 
were  to  press  this  point  with  prayers  and  tears,  to  re- 
mind the  Emperor  of  God,  and  of  the  day  of  judgment. 
Should  the  Emperor  reply,  "  What  would  you  have  ? 

1  There  was  a  preliminary  caution  that,  as  it  was  customary  in  Constan- 
tinople for  all  persons  admitted  to  the  emperor  on  ecclesiastical  business  to 
oe  presented  by  the  bishop,  they  were  to  omit,  if  possible,  receiving  this 
courtesy  from  Timotheus,  and  if  he  should  officiously  thrust  himself  in  the 
ivay,  and  enforce  the  right  of  presentation,  to  declare  that  they  were  di- 
rectly accredited  to  the  emperor  alone. 


426  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

I  receive  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  letters  of 
Leo : "  they  were  to  elude  any  assent  to  this  protest, 
unless  he  would  issue  his  imperial  letters  compelling  a 
general  union  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  Should  the 
Emperor  say,  "  Will  you  then  receive  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople  into  communion  ? "  Here  was  the 
nicest  point  of  all,  to  avoid  the  recognition  of  either  of 
the  contending  prelates,  and  so  to  bring  the  absolute 
nomination  of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  proposed  Council,  over  which  Coun- 
cil was  to  preside  the  representative  of  Rome.  The 
instructions  even  anticipate  a  dangerous  objection, 
which  might  occur  to  Anastasius,  that  the  rival  prel- 
ate, Macedonius,  was  a  notorious  heretic.  This,  they 
were  to  rejoin,  is  a  question  to  be  calmly  considered 
when  the  Church  is  restored  to  unity.  "  What,"  should 
the  Emperor  say,  "  is  my  city  to  be  without  a  bishop?  " 
"  The  canons,"  they  are  to  answer,  "  provide  remedies 
for  such  a  difficulty."  But  these  inexorable  terms  were 
not  all.  Anastasius  was  not  only  to  be  compelled  to  be 
a  persecutor.  Besides  the  acceptance  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  the  Leonine  letters  by  the  Emperor, 
and  the  compulsory  enforcement  of  obedience  from  the 
clergy,  were  demanded  from  the  Emperor,  as  to  be  rat- 
ified by  the  Council,  III.  The  public  anathema  of  NIAS- 
torius,  Eutyches,  Dioscorus,  and  also  of  their  followers, 
(the  maintainers  of  the  Henoticon,)  Timotheus  jElu- 
rus,  Peter  of  Alexandria,  Acacius,  formerly  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  and  Peter  of  Antioch.  IV.  The 
immediate  recall  from  exile  of  all  ecclesiastics  in  com- 
munion with  Rome,  the  causes  of  their  respective  ban- 
ishments to  be  examined  by  the  Apostolic  See.  V.  The 
judgment  of  those  accused  of  persecuting  the  Catholics 


CHAP.  m.  PROCEEDINGS  OF  ANASTASIUS.  427 

to  be  in  like  manner  submitted  to  the  court  of  Rome. 
On  the  full  acceptance  of  these  terms,  Hormisdas  con- 
sented to  honor  the  future  Council  with  his  personal 
presence,  not  to  deliberate  but  to  ratify  his  own  solemn 
determinations. 

But  Anastasius  was  not  reduced  so  low  as  to  submit 
to  these  debasing  conditions.  The  condemnation  of 
Acacius  was  unpopular  at  Constantinople,  the  memory 
of  the  Bishop  dear  and  sacred  to  a  large  party.  Anas- 
tasius chose  this  point  of  resistance.  He  accepted  on 
his  own  part  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  why  should 
the  living  be  kept  excommunicated  from  the  Church  on 
account  of  the  dead  ?  The  terms  of  Hormisdas  could 
not  be  enforced  without  much  bloodshed.1  A.D.  507. 
The  embassy  returned  to  Rome.  Anastasius  continued 
to  temporize.  An  imperial  embassy  appeared  in  Rome, 
accredited  to  the  Senate  as  well  as  to  the  Pope.  It  en- 
treated the  intervention  of  that  venerable  body  with 
the  glorious  Theodoric  to  unite  the  afflicted  Christian 
Church  and  Empire.  Hormisdas  treated  these  lay  am- 
bassadors, who  presumed  to  interfere  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  with  supercilious  contempt.  The  churches  of 
Illyria,  of  which  the  opinions  had  as  yet  hung  in  doubt, 
had  now  given  their  unqualified  adhesion  to  Hormisdas 
and  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Far  from  retracting, 
he  rose  in  his  demands ;  he  condescended  indeed  to 
send  a  second  legation,  Ennodius,  Bishop  of  Pavia,  and 
Peregrinus,  Bishop  of  Misenum,  to  Constantinople. 
His  answer  by  them  was  a  vehement  and  implacable 
invective  against  the  memory  of  Acacius.2  That  Bish- 

1  "  Grave  esse  dementia  nostra  judicat  de  ecclesia  venerabili  propter 
mortuos  vivos  expelli,  nee  sine  mult  a  effusione  sanguinis  scimus  posse  ea. 
^uae  super  hoc  scribitis,  ordinari."  —  Epist.  Anastas.  Labbe,  p.  1432. 

2  Epistola  Hormisdse  apud  Labbe. 


428  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IB. 

op's  communion  with  the  followers  of  Dioscorus  and  of 
Eutyches  infected  him  with  their  most  heinous  guilt. 
All  who  hated  those  heretics,  must  hate  Acacius.  The 
crime  of  Acacius  was  darker  than  that  of  the  original 
authors  of  the  heresy.  The  condemnation  of  Acacius, 
the  unpardonable  Acacius  —  Acacius  who  had  claimed 
equality  with  the  Pope — was  now  the  only  obstacle  to 
the  peace  between  Eastern  and  Western  Christendom, 
a  consummation  to  which  the  West,  even  the  remotest 
Gaul  (so  wrote  Hormisdas,  alluding  to  the  Catholic 
Franks)  looked  forward  with  eager  interest.  Anasta- 
sius  was  now  more  secure  upon  his  throne,  his  formida- 
ble subject,  Vitalianus,  had  lost  his  power.  To  his 
honor,  he  would  not  abandon  even  the  memory  of  Aca- 
cius, who  had  been  guilty  only  of  firmly  carrying  out 
the  Emperor's  scheme  of  toleration ;  he  broke  off  all 
further  communication  with  the  merciless  Prelate. 
"  We  may  submit  to  insult,  we  may  endure  that  our 
decrees  be  annulled,  but  we  will  not  be  commanded.1 
Hormisdas  must  await  the  accession  of  a  new  Emperor 
Justin,  before  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Byzantium 
are  reunited  by  the  sacrifice  of  him,  who  besides  his 
communion  with  Eutychians,  had  dared  to  equal  him- 
self with  the  successor  of  St.  Peter." 

But  with  the  age  and  decay  of  Anastasius  the 
strength  of  the  Chalcedonian  party  increased  rapidly. 
Timotheus,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  gave  hopes 
at  least,  that  he  would  secure  himself  by  timely  conces- 
sion. Hormisdas  addressed  encouraging  letters  to  the 
Catholic  bishops,  and  though  Anastasius  ventured  to 
punish  with  severity  certain  monks  who  strove  to  stir 
up  rebellion,  he  dared  not  to  resent  this  treasonable 

i  Epist.  Anastas.  Labbe,  p.  1460. 


CHAP.  III.  ACCESSION  OF  JUSTEST.  429 

correspondence  with  his  subjects.  The  monks  in  Syria, 
of  that  party,  appealed  from  the  Emperor,  whom  they 
accused  of  contemptuously  rejecting  their  humble  sup- 
plications for  protection  and  redress  against  their  rivals, 
charged  with  the  massacre  of  their  brethren  in  the 

O 

church,  to  the  representative  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul.1 

The  strife  ended  with  the  death,  if  we  are  to  believe 
Baronius,  the  damnation  of  Anastasius.  The  death 
of  an  old  man,  at  least  of  eighty-one,  more  likely 
eighty-eight  years  of  age,  was  ascribed  to  the  visible 

O        J  O  J 

vengeance  of  God.  There  was  a  terrible  tempest,  and 
that  tempest  transported  away  the  affrighted  soul  of  the 
Emperor,  or  struck  him  dead  by  its  lightning.  His 
death  was  revealed  to  a  saint  at  a  great  distance,  who 
communicated  the  awful  fact  to  three  of  his  brethren, 
intimating  at  the  same  time  that  he  himself  was  sum- 

O 

moned  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  God  within  ten 
days,  to  bear  witness  against  the  Emperor.2  This 
Elias  departed  before  the  end  of  ten  days  on  his  chari- 
table errand,  so  necessary  to  enlighten  Omniscience  as 
to  the  deeds  of  a  mortal  man.  So  deeply  had  the  pas- 
sion of  hatred,  offering  itself  to  the  heart  in  the  garb 
of  religious  zeal,  infected  the  Christian  mind,  that  Car- 
dinal Baronius,  reviving  the  inexorable  resentment 
which  had  slept  for  centuries,  calls  upon  the  Church  to 
sing  a  hymn  of  rejoicing  over  this  new  Pharaoh,  this 
Emperor,  thus,  for  his  resistance  to  the  Pope,  judged, 
damned,  and  thrust  down  into  hell. 

Justin,  a  rude  unlettered  Dacian  peasant,  seized  the 
throne  of  Constantinople ;  and  there  was  an  instan- 

1  Relatio  Archimandrit.  et  Monach.  ii.     Syria?  apud  Labbe,  1461 
8  Baronius,  sub  ann.  518,  with  his  authorities. 


430  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

Accession  of   taneous  religious  revolution  in  the  Byzantine 
9,'  sis.    court  and  city,  and  throughout  the  East.    Jus- 


tin, though  ignorant,  was  known  to  be  of  unbending 
orthodoxy.  Only  six  days  after  his  proclamation,  the 
July  is.  Emperor,  with  his  wife  Lupicina,  who  had 
been  his  slave  and  concubine,  and  who  took  the  more 
decorous  name  of  Euphemia,  entered  the  great  church. 
The  populace  broke  out  in  acclamations,  "  Long  life 
to  the  new  Constantino  and  the  new  Helena."  Their 
clamors  ceased  not  with  these  loyal  expressions  : 
"  Away  with  the  Manicheans,  proclaim  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon."  They  demanded  the  degradation  of 
Severus  of  Antioch,  immediate  reconciliation  with 
Rome,  and  even  that  the  bones  of  the  Manicheans  (the 
Emperor  Anastasius  and  his  party)  should  be  torn  up 
from  their  sepulchres.  John  of  Cappadocia,  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople,  a  man  of  servile  mind, 
though  unmeasured  ambition,  had  acquiesced  without 
remonstrance  in  all  the  measures  of  Anastasius.  He 
now  ascended  the  pulpit,  declared  his  adhesion  to  the 
four  great  Councils,  especially  that  of  Chalcedon. 
The  populace  summoned  him  to  utter  his  anathema 
against  Severus  ;  the  Prelate  obeyed.  The  next  day 
was  celebrated  a  festival  in  honor  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  John  of  Cappadocia  hastily  assembled  a 
Council  of  forty  bishops,  which  confirmed  all  the  de- 
mands of  the  rabble  ;  Justin  ratified  their  decrees  by 
an  imperial  edict,  commanding  the  recall  of  all  the 
exiled  bishops,  and  the  expulsion  of  those  who  had 
usurped  their  sees.  A  second  edict  disqualified  all 
heretics  from  holding  civil  or  military  office.  The 
whole  East  followed  the  example  of  the  capital,  and 
became  orthodox  with  the  orthodox  Emperor.  Hera- 


CHAP.  m.  CLOSE  OF  THE  SCHISM.  431 

clea,  Nicea,  Nicomedia,  Gangra,  Jerusalem,  Ptolemais, 
Tyre,  restored  the  Chalcedonian  bishops.  Cloge  of  ^ 
Antioch  shook  off  the  yoke  of  Severus. schism 
Thessalonica  and  Alexandria  alone  made  resistance, 
but  were  awed  into  submission.  The  death  of  the 
Eunuch  Amantius,  who  had  aspired  to  dispose  of  the 
empire,  which  he  could  not  usurp  himself;  by  whose 
gold,  intrusted  to  him  for  other  purposes,  Justin  had 
bought  the  crown ;  had  been  demanded  as  a  sacrifice 
by  the  populace,  and  was  readily  conceded  by  Justin, 
his  treason  being  aggravated  by  his  notorious  Mani- 
cheism.  Theocritus,  whom  he  had  intended  to  raise  to 
the  empire,  shared  his  unpopularity  and  his  doom.  But 
Vitalianus,  the  pillar  of  orthodoxy,  met  no  better  fate ; 
he  was  treacherously  invited  to  Constantinople,  pro- 
moted to  the  highest  dignity,  and  in  the  seventh  month 
of  his  consulate  assassinated  by  the  agents  of  Justin- 
ian, the  Emperor's  nephew,  now  clearing  the  way  for 
his  own  accession  to  the  throne.  Even  before  these 
necessary  precautions  for  the  security  of  his  reign,  the 
zealous  Emperor  had  opened  negotiations  with  Rome.1 
All  opposition  shrunk  away.  Hormisdas  had  the  satis- 
faction not  merely  of  compelling,  by  the  aid  of  the 
Emperor,  the  whole  East  to  accept  his  theologic  doc- 
trines, but  his  anathemas  also  of  the  living  and  of  the 
dead.  At  the  demand  of  his  legates,  the  names  of 
Acacius,  and  all  who  communicated  with  him,  those 
of  the  Emperors  Zeno  and  Anastasius,  were  erased 
from  the  diptychs.  John  the  Patriarch  vainly  strag- 
gled to  save  the  blameless  names  of  Euphemius  and 
Macedonius  from  the  same  ignominy :  they  were  in- 
cluded with  the  rest  (they  were  severely  orthodox,  but 

1  The  first  letter  of  Justin  was  dated  August  1;  the  second,  September  7. 


432  LATDT    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

they  had  been  guilty  of  acknowledging  Acacius  and 
his  successor  as  legitimate  patriarchs)  ;  l  yet,  never- 
theless, the  East  has  continued  to  reverence  them  as 
of  undoubted  orthodoxy.  John  however  contrived  a 
happy  expedient  to  elude  the  direct  recognition  of  the 
supremacy  of  Rome,  by  declaring  that  the  Churches 
of  old  and  new  Rome  were  one.  He  assumed,  by  the 
March  28,  permission  of  Justin,  the  yet  pregnant  title 
A.D.  619.  o£  oecmnenjc  Patriarch.  So  closed  the  schism 
which  had  lasted  for  thirty-five  years.  Latin  and 
Greek  Christianity  held  again  one  creed  —  East  and 
West  were  at  peace. 

Theodoric  had  stood  aloof,  whether  in  contemptuous 


at   indifference,  or,  as  he  might  suppose,  intent 

theheiehtof  .  .  .         . 

prosperity,  on  nobler  objects,  from  all  these  intrigues, 
embassies,  and  negotiations.  He  left  his  subject,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  to  assert,  as  he  might,  his  ecclesiasti- 
cal superiority  over  Constantinople  ;  to  league  with  the 
rebellious  subjects  of  Byzantium  against  the  ea-tern 
Emperor  ;  to  treat  with  Justin  almost  as  an  indepen- 
dent sovereign.  Theodoric  was  now  at  the  height  of 
his  fame  and  power,  his  kingdom  of  its  peace  and  felic- 
ity. His  dominion  extended  without  rival,  without 
opposition,  from  the  Alps  to  Calabria.  His  sovereignty 
extended  over  the  ancient  provinces  of  Noricum  and 
Pannonia,  and  some  large  adjacent,  if  not  distinctly 
bounded  territories  ;  over  the  whole  south  of  France, 
and  even  parts  of  Spain.  But  not  all  the  victories.  m>t 
all  the  virtues,  not  the  wisdom,  justice,  and  moderation 
of  Theodoric,  nor  the  prosperity  of  Italy  under  his 
rule,  could  secure  his  repose,  or  enable  him  to  elnsi-  his 
reign  without  strife,  injustice,  persecution,  and  blood- 

1  Compare  Walch,  vii.  p.  109. 


CHAP.  HI.  CATHOLICISM.  433 

shed.  His  firm  character  might  overawe  the  elements 
of  civil  dissension,  the  jealousy  of  the  two  races  which 
formed  his  subjects,  and  the  feeble  impatience  of  Rome 
under  the  barbarian  sway.  It  was  religious  strife 
which  broke  up  the  quiet  of  his  life  and  reign,  and  per- 
haps, by  imbittering  his  temper  in  the  decline  of  his 
days,  by  awakening  suspicions  not  altogether  ground- 
less, and  fears  not  without  warrant,  led  to  the  crimes 
which  have  so  deeply  sullied  his  memory,  the  death  of 
Boethius  and  of  Symmachus.  Notwithstanding  the 
natural  repugnance  of  the  Romans  to  a  foreign  sway, 
and  the  secret  dissatisfaction  with  which  the  Emperor 
of  the  East  must  have  beheld  the  West  alto-  Catholicism, 
gether  severed  from  the  Roman  Empire,  yet  Theodoric 
the  Goth  might  have  lived  and  ruled,  and  transmitted 
his  sceptre  in  peace  to  his  posterity  ;  but  an  orthodox 
empire  would  not  repose  in  unreluctant  submission 
under  an  Arian.  It  was  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
upon  the  accession  of  Justin,  which  endangered  his 
government.  Heresy,  at  the  head  of  a  prosperous 
kingdom,  and  a  powerful  fleet  and  army  in  the  West, 
had  commanded  respect,  so  long  as  Eutychianism,  or 
the  no  less  odious  compulsory  toleration  of  the  Henoti- 
con,  sate  on  the  throne  of  Constantinople.  Catholi- 
cism had  concentrated  all  its  hatred  on  the  Manicheans, 
as  they  were  called,  who  refused  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  ;  but  no  sooner  were  those  dissensions  healed, 
than  it  began  to  resent,  to  look  with  holy  jealousy 
upon,  and  to  burn  with  fiery  zeal  against  the  older 
heterodoxy ;  it  would  no  longer  brook  the  equality  of 
the  detested  Arians. 

The  first  aggression  was  confined  to  the  East.     Jus- 
tin in  a  terrible  edict  commanded  all  Mani-  A.D.  523 
VOL.  i.  28 


434  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  in. 

cheans  to  leave  the  empire  on  pain  of  death  ;  all  other 
heretics,  who  were  ranked  with  pagans  and  Jews,  were 
incapacitated  for  all  civil  and  military  offices,  excepting 
the  Goths,  and  other  foreign  soldiers  in  the  service  of 
the  empire.1  The  exception  might  seem  intended  to 
lull  the  jealousy  of  Theodoric ;  yet  the  Arians  of  the 
East  could  not  but  see  that  this,  hard  measure  as  it 
was,  was  only  the  beginning  of  the  persecution ;  they 
looked  to  the  Sovereign  of  Italy  for  protection,  for  the 
continued  possession  of  that  tacit  exemption  which  they 
had  long  enjoyed,  from  the  intolerant  rigor  in  force 
against  other  heretics.  It  was  precisely  at  this  junct- 
ure that  rumors  were  spread  abroad  of  dangerous 
speeches  —  at  least  concerning  their  independence  of 
the  Gothic  yoke,  of  the  assertion  of  the  liberties  of 
Rome  —  having  been  ventured  in  the  capital.  Vague 
intelligence  reached  Ravenna,  of  an  actual  and  wide- 
spread conspiracy  which  involved  the  whole  Senate  ; 
Rumora  of  but  °f  which  Albums,  the  most  distinguished 
conspiracies.  of  ^  Roman  patricians,  was  the  head.  In- 
dignation, not  without  apprehension,  at  this  sudden, 
and,  as  it  appeared,  simultaneous  movememt  of  hos- 
tility, seized  the  soul  of  Theodoric.  The  whole  cir- 
cumstances of  his  position  demand  careful  considera- 
tion. Nothing  could  be  more  unprovoked  than  the 
religious  measures  of  Constantinople,  as  far  as  they 
menaced  the  West,  or  assailed  the  kindred  of  Theod- 
oric in  the  East  or  even  those  who  held  the  same 
faith.  His  equity  to  his  Catholic  and  Arian  subjects 
was  unimpeachable  ;  to  the  Pope  he  had  always  shown 
respectful  deference  ;  he  had  taken  no  advantage  of  the 
contention  for  the  Pontificate  to  promote  his  own 

1  Theophanes.    Cedrenus  in  loc. 


CHAP.  111.  CATHOLICISM.  435 

tenets.     Even  as  late  as  this  very  year,  he  A.B.  523. 

iii  i  i        /-ii  f  o       T»  Of  Theodoric's 

had  bestowed  on  the  Church  or  ot.  I  eter  two  reign  31. 
magnificent  chandeliers  of  solid  silver.  But  the  Catho- 
lics resented,  no  doubt,  the  unshaken  justice  with  which 
Theodoric  had  protected  the  Jews.1  At  Rome,  at 
Milan,  and  at  Genoa  the  Jews  had  been  The  Jews, 
attacked  by  the  irrepressible  hostility  of  the  Catholics : 
their  synagogues  had  been  burned  or  destroyed,  01 
their  property  unjustly  seized.  Theodoric  compelled 
the  restoration  of  the  synagogues  at  the  public  expense. 
The  Catholics  had  taken  the  pretext  of  the  demolition 
of  a  small  chapel  dedicated  to  St.  Stephen  at  Verona, 
probably  for  the  fortification  or  embellishment  of  the 
city,  as  another  indication  of  aggression  on  the  part 
of  Theodoric.2  These  were  slight  but  significant  signs 
of  the  growing  hostility.  Nor  was  it  in  the  East  alone 
that  Catholicism  menaced  the  life  of  Arianism.  The 
Council  of  Epaona,  in  Burgundian  Gaul,  at  which 
bishops  from  the  territories  of  Theodoric  had  met, 
had  passed  severe  canons  closing  the  churches  of  the 
Arians. 

Though  Clovis  was  now  dead,  orthodoxy  was  still 
the  battle-cry  of  the  Franks ;  in  all  the  Gothic  king- 
doms the  government  might  dread  the  prayers,  if  not 
the  more  active  interference  of  the  Catholic  clergy  on 
the  side  of  their  enemies. 

It  was  in  connection  with  the  bad  feeling,  which 
caused  and  was  no  doubt  aggravated  by  the  demolition 
of  the  chapel  in  Verona,  that  Theodoric  took  the 
strong  measure  of  totally  disarming  the  Roman  popu- 

1  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  v.  iii.  p.  115. 

2  Gibbon  supposes  that  Theodoric  may  have  been  anathematized  from 
the  pulpit  of  that  chapel. 


436  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

lation.  He  prohibited  them  from  bearing  any  offensive 
weapons  ;  the  only  instrument  permitted  was  a  small 
knife,  for  the  common  purposes  of  life. 

No  less  doubtful  and  menacing  was  the  aspect  of 
Bute  of  civil  affairs.  The  heir  of  Theodoric  was  a 

Theodoric'i  .,  .         TT.  ,,  .  _,      .        . 

fcmiiy.  child.  His  gallant  son-m-law  Eutlians,  the 
hopeful  successor  to  his  valor,  his  wisdom,  as  well  as 
his  religious  opinions,  was  now  dead.  Notwithstanding 
all  her  virtues  and  her  accomplishments,  Amalasuntha, 
his  only  daughter,  as  a  female  could  hardly  cope  with 
the  difficulties  of  the  times,  sole  guardian  of  a  boy-king. 
Theodoric  knew  that  the  Emperor  of  the  East  in  his 
pride,  still  considered  the  barbarian  king  as  his  vassal, 
as  originally  holding  Italy  by  his  grant,  and  so,  no 
doubt,  claimed  the  power  of  revoking  that  grant.  The 
Goths  might  be  safe  from  hostile  aggression,  so  long  as 
the  aged  Justin,  who  was  sixty-eight  years  old,  at  his 
accession,  occupied  the  throne:  but  he  could  not  be 
ignorant  of  the  character,  the  unmeasured  and  un- 
scrupulous ambition,  the  unbending  orthodoxy  of  Jus- 
tinian. Theodoric's  prophetic  sagacity  might  well 
anticipate  the  events  which  in  a  few  years  would  not 
merely  endanger,  but  extinguish  the  Italian  kingdom 
of  the  Goths. 

It  was  at  this  juncture,  when  the  Emperor  of  the 
East  might  be  at  least  suspected  of  designs,  if  he  had 
not  committed  overt  acts,  in  order  to  recover  and 
reunite  the  severed  empire;  when  he  might  seem  to 
be  enlisting  all  the  religious  and  all  the  Roman  sym- 
pathies of  Theodoric's  subjects  in  a  kind  of  initiatory 
treason,  in  a  deep,  if  yet  silent  and  inactive  dissatisfac- 
tion, that  these  dark  rumors  began  to  spread  of  secret 
intelligence  between  the  senate  of  Rome- and  the  East. 


CHAP.  III.  BOETHIUS. 

Men,  it  is  asserted  by  Boethius  himself,  of  infamous 
character,  yet  who  had  held,  and  who  afterwards  held 
high  offices  of  trust  and  honor,  accused  Albinus,  the 
chief  of  the  Senate,  of  disloyal  correspondence  with 
Constantinople. 

Albinus  was  the  friend  of  Boethius.  Boethius  the 
senator,  the  patrician,  the  descendant  and  Boetwns. 
head  of  the  noble  Anician  family,  who  connected  him- 
self with  the  old  republic  by  the  name  of  Manlius  ;  the 
philosopher,  the  theologian,  the  consummate  master  of 
all  the  arts  and  sciences  known  at  that  period  —  had 
been  raised  to  the  highest  civil  honors  ;  not  only  had 
he  himself  received  the  ensigns  of  the  Consulate,  but 
the  father  had  seen  his  two  sons  in  the  same  year  raised 
to  that  honor,  which  still  maintained  its  traditionary 
grandeur  in  the  Roman  mind.  On  the  day  of  their 
inauguration,  Boethius,  too,  pronounced  a  panegyric 
on  his  munificent  Gothic  sovereign,  and  displayed  his 
own  magnificence  by  distributing  a  noble  largess  to  the 
people  at  the  games.  In  his  pubh'c  capacity  Boethius 
had  declared  himself  the  protector  of  the  Romans 
against  the  oppressions  of  Theodoric's  ministers.  He 
had  repressed  the  extortions  of  Cunegast,  the  more 
violent  tyranny  of  Treguella,  the  chamberlain  of  The- 
odoric's household  —  (these  names  betray  their  Gothic 
origin).  By  a  dangerous  exercise  of  his  authority  he 
had  rescued  many  unfortunate  persons  from  the  rapac- 
ity of  the  barbarians ;  he  had  saved  the  fortunes  of 
many  other  provincials  from  private  exaction,  and  from 
unjust  and  inordinate  taxation.  He  had  opposed  the 
Praetorian  Praefect  in  certain  measures,  by  which  a 
famine  in  Campania  would  have  been  greatly  aggra- 
vated ;  on  this  act  he  had  received  the  public  approba 


438  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

tion  of  the  King.  He  had  plucked  Paullinus,  a  man  of 
senatorial  rank,  from  the  very  jaws  of  those  hounds  of  the 
palace,  who  had  already  in  hope  devoured  his  confiscat- 
ed estate.  Such,  according  to  Boethius  himself,  WITH 
his  merits  towards  his  own  countrymen,  the  causes  of 
the  hostility  towards  him  among  the  Gothic  courtiers 
of  Theodoric.  And  even  under  the  rigid  equity  of  The- 
odoric,  such  abuses  might  be  almost  inevitable  in  that 
form  of  society.  Boethius  hastened  to  Verona  to  con- 
front the  accuser  Cyprianus,  the  great  referendary,  when 
he  heard  the  accusation  of  treason  against  Albinus,1 
charges  and  in  the  face  of  the  Emperor  declared,  "  If 
Aibinus.  Albinus  is  criminal,  I  and  the  whole  Senate 
are  equally  guilty."  The  generous  boldness  of  Boe- 
thius awoke  no  admiration  or  sympathy  in  the  heart 
of  Theodoric.  Instead  of  saving  his  friend,  Boethius 
was  involved  in  his  ruin.  Three  persons,  one  of  whom 
Basilius  (according  to  Boethius)  had  been  dismissed 
ignominiously  from  the  royal  service,  and  whom  pov- 
erty drove  to  any  crime ;  two  others,  Opilio  and  Gau- 
dentius,  who  had  been  exiled,  had  taken  refuge  in  the 
sanctuary  of  a  church,  and  had  been  threatened,  if  they 
should  not  leave  Ravenna  in  a  certain  number  of  days, 
with  branding  in  the  forehead,  were  admitted  as  wit- 
nesses against  Boethius.  He  was  accused  of  more  than 
hoping  for  the  freedom  of  Rome.  His  signature, 
forged  as  he  declared,  was  shown  at  the  foot  of  an 
address,  inviting  the  Emperor  of  the  East  to  reconquer 
Italy.2  Boethius  was  refused  permission  to  examine 

1  Gibbon  says  that  Albinos  was  only  accused  of  hoping  the  liberty  of 
Rome.    The  Anonym.  Vales,  declares  the  charge  to  have  been  of  treason- 
able correspondence  with  the  East 

2  The  specific  charges  against  Boethius  were,  that  he  had  endeavored  to 
maintain  inviolate  the  authority  of  the  senate ;  that  he  had  prevented  an 


CHAP.  III.     CORRESPONDENCE  OF  EAST  AND  WEST.        439 

the  informers.  He  admits  the  latent,  but  glorious 
treason  of  his  heart.  "  Had  there  been  any  hopes  of 
liberty,  I  should  have  freely  indulged  them.  Had  I 
known  of  a  conspiracy  against  the  King,  I  should  have 
answered  in  the  words  of  a  noble  Roman  to  the  frantic 
Caligula,  you  would  not  have  known  it  from  me." 
The  King,  now,  in  the  words  of  Boethius,  eager  to 
involve  the  whole  Senate  in  one  common  ruin,1  con- 
demned Boethius  to  imprisonment.  He  was  incar- 
cerated in  Calvenzano,  a  castle  between  Milan  and 
Pavia.2 

In  the  mean  time  the  religious  aifairs  of  the  East 
became  more  threatening  to  the  kinsmen,  and  to  those 
who  held  the  same  religious  creed  with  Theodoric. 
The  correspondence  between  the  monarchs  Correspond. 
had  produced  no  effect.  Theodoric  had  writ-  |™et  ^tdween 
ten  in  these  words  to  Justin  :  —  "  To  pretend  West- 
to  a  dominion  over  the  conscience,  is  to  usurp  the  pre- 
rogative of  God  ;  by  the  nature  of  things  the  power  of 
sovereigns  is  confined  to  political  government ;  they 
have  no  right  of  punishment  but  over  those  who  dis- 
turb the  public  peace;3  the  most  dangerous  heresy  is 
that  of  a  sovereign  who  separates  himself  from  part 
of  his  subjects,  because  they  believe  not  according  to 
his  belief."  Golden  words  !  but  mistimed  above  twelve 
hundred  years. 

informer  from  forwarding  certain  documents  inculpating  the  senate  to  the 
king ;  that  he  had  been  privy  and  assenting  to  an  address  from  the  senate 
to  the  Emperor  of  the  East. 

1  Avidus  communis  exitii. 

2  The  narrative  of  these  events  is  perplexed  by  making,  as  many  writer^ 
(following  the  Anonym.  Vales.)  have  done,  the  death  of  Boethius  immedi 
fttely  consequent  upon  his  imprisonment.     But  he  had  time  during  that  im 
orisonment  to  write  the  De  Consolat.  Philosophise. 

8  Cassiod.  ii.  6,  iii.  28. 


440  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  UL 

Justin  coolly  answered,  that  he  pretended  to  no 
authority  over  men's  consciences,  but  it  was  his  pre- 
rogative to  intrust  the  public  offices  to  those  in  whom 
he  had  confidence ;  and  public  order  demanding  uni- 
formity of  worship,  he  had  full  right  to  command  the 
churches  to  be  open  to  those  alone  who  should  conform 
to  the  religion  of  the  state.  The  Arians  of  the  East 
were  thus  stripped  of  all  offices  of  honor  or  emolu- 
ment, were  not  only  expelled  from  the  Catholic 
churches,  but  their  own  were  closed  against  them,  and 
they  were  exposed  to  all  the  insults,  vexations,  and  per- 
secutions of  their  adversaries,  who  were  not  likely  to 
enjoy  their  triumph  with  moderation,  or  to  repress 
their  conscientiously  intolerant  zeal.  Great  numbers 
who  held  but  loosely  to  their  faith,  conformed  to  the 
state  religion  ;  the  more  sincere  appealed  in  the  strong- 
est terms  to  the  protection  of  Theodoric.  TLe  King 
of  Italy  at  first  maintained  something  of  his  usual 
calm  moderation ;  he  declined  all  retaliation,  to  which 
he  had  been  incessantly  urged,  on  the  orthodox  of  the 

West.  He  determined  on  an  embassy  to 
-  Constantinople  to  enforce  upon  the  Eastern 

Emperor  the  wisdom  of  mutual  toleration , 
the  ambassador  whom  he  selected  for  this  mission  ol 
peace  was  the  Pope  himself,  not  the  vigorous  Hormis- 
das,  but  John  the  1st.  who  had  quietly  succeeded  to  the 
See  of  Rome  on  the  death  of  that  Prelate.1  This 
extraordinary  measure  shows  either  an  overweening 
reliance  in  Theodoric  on  his  own  power,  or  a  confidence 
magnanimous,  but  equally  unaccountable,  a  confidence 
bordering  on  simplicity,  that  for  his  own  uninterrupted 
exercise  of  justice,  humanity,  and  moderation  he  had  a 

1  John,  Pope,  August  13,  A.D.  5-23. 


CHAP.  III.  THEODORIC  AND  THE  POPE.  441 

right  to  expect  the  return  of  fidelity  and  gratitude. 
Could  he  fondly  suppose  that  the  loyalty  of  the  Pope 
would  be  proof  against  the  blandishments  of  the 
Eastern  court,  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  would  be 
zealous  in  a  cause  so  directly  at  issue  with  his  own 
principles  ?  The  Pope  summoned  to  Ravenna,  was 
instructed  to  demand  of  Justin  the  reopening  of  their 
churches  to  the  Arians,  perfect  toleration,  and  the 
restoration  to  their  former  faith  of  those  who  on  com- 
pulsion had  conformed  to  the  Catholic  religion.1  To 
the  Pope's  remonstrances  and  attempts  to  limit  his 
mediatorial  office,  to  points  less  unsuited  to  his  character, 
Theodoric  angrily  replied,  by  commanding  the  envoys 
instantly  to  embark  on  the  vessels  which  were  ready 
for  the  voyage.2  The  Pope,  attended  by  five  other 
bishops  and  four  senators,  set  forth  on  a  mission  of 
which  it  was  the  ostensible  object  to  obtain  indulgence 
for  heretics,  heretics  under  the  ban  of  his  Church,  here- 
tics looked  upon  with  the  most  profound  detestation. 

Hitherto  the  Pope  had  remained  in  his  unmoved 
and  stately  dignity  within  his  own  city.  Excepting  in 
the  case  of  the  exiled  Liberius,  he  had  hardly  ventured 
further  than  the  court  of  Ravenna,  or  on  such  a  service 
as  that  of  Leo  to  the  camp  of  Attila.  The  Pope  had 
not  even  attended  any  of  the  great  Councils.  Aware, 
as  it  might  almost  seem,  that  much  of  the  awe  which 
attached  to  his  office,  arose  from  the  seat  of  his  author- 
ity, he  had  but  rarely  departed  from  the  chair  of  St. 
Peter  ;  and  but  recently  Hormisdas  had  demanded  the 
unconditional  submission  of  the  Emperor  of  Constanti- 

1  This  seems  the  meaning  of  the  sentence  hi  the  Anonym.  Vales.  "  ut 
teconciliatos  hseretieos  in  catholics  restituat  religione."  — p.  626. 

2  Their  names  in  the  Anonym.  Vales. 


442  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

nople  to  his  decrees,  as  the  price  of  his  promised  con- 
descension to  appear  at  a  Council  in  that  city. 

The  Pope  was  received  in  Constantinople  with  the 
Pope  John  in  most  flattering  honors,  as  though  he  had  been 
pie-  St.  Peter  himself.  The  whole  city,  with  the 

Emperor  at  its  head,  came  forth  to  meet  him  with 
tapers  and  torches,  as  far  as  ten  miles  beyond  the 
gates.  The  Emperor  knelt  at  his  feet  and  implored  his 
March 30, 625.  benediction.  On  Easter  day  he  performed 
the  service  in  the  great  Church,  Epiphanius  the  Bish- 
op ceding  the  first  place  to  the  more  holy  stranger. 
It  was  hinted  in  the  West  that  the  Pope  had  placed 
the  crown  on  the  head  of  Justin.  But  of  the  course  and 
the  success  of  his  negotiations  all  is  utterly  confused 
and  contradictory.  By  one  account,  now  abandoned 
as  a  later  forgery,  he  boldly  confirmed  the  Emperor  in 
the  rejection  of  all  concessions,  and  himself  consecrated 
all  the  Arian  Churches  for  Catholic  worship.1  By 
another,  he  was  so  far  faithful  to  his  mission,  as  to 
obtain  liberty  of  worship,  and  the  restitution  of  their 
Churches  to  the  Arians.  The  Emperor  refused  only 
the  restoration  of  those  Arians  who  had  embraced  the 
Catholic  faith.2  Ah1  that  is  certainly  known  is,  that 
John  the  Pope  on  his  return  was  received  as  a  traitor 
imprUon-  by  Theodoric,  thrown  into  prison,  and  there 

mentand  *  .  .  />      i          -ur  i 

death  of        the    highest   ecclesiastic   or    the     \\  est    lan- 

John.  e 

May  is.  636.  guished  for  nearly  a  year,  and  died.  But  be- 
fore his  return,  the  deep  and  wide  spread  conspiracy, 
which  Theodoric  had  discovered,  or  supposed  that 
he  had  discovered,  led  to  the  death  of  a  far  greater 

1  Baronius  rested  this  on  a  supposititious  letter  of  Isidorus  Mercator; 
this  letter  is  exploded  by  Pagi,  sub  ann.  526. 
*  Anonym.  Tales,  p.  627.    Histor.  Miscell.  apud  Muratori. 


CHAP.  III.  BOETHIUS.  443 

man,  Boethius,  and  subsequently  to  that  of  the  vir- 
tuous father-in-law  of  Boethius,  the  Senator  Sym- 
maclms.  Boethius  had  lightened  the  hours  in  his 
dreary  confinement  by  the  composition  of  his  Boethius's 
famous  book,  the  Consolation  of  Philosophy,  Philosophy, 
the  closing  work  of  Roman  literature.  Intellectually, 
Boethius  was  the  last  of  the  Romans,  and  Roman 
letters  may  be  said  to  have  expired  with  greater 
dignity  in  his  person,  than  the  Empire  in  that  of 
Augustulus.  His  own  age  might  justly  wonder  at 
the  universal  accomplishments  of  Boethius.  Theodoric 
himself,  writing  by  the  hand,  and  no  doubt  in  the  pe- 
dantic language  of  his  minister  Cassiodorus,  had  paid 
homage  to  his  knowledge.  "  Through  him  Pythagoras 
the  musician,  Ptolemy  the  astronomer,  Nicomachus 
the  arithmetician,  Euclid  the  geometer,  Plato  the  theo- 
logian, Aristotle  the  logician,  Archimedes  the  mechani- 
cian, had  learned  to  speak  the  Roman  language."  Boe- 
thius had  mingled  in  theologic  controversy,  had  dis- 
cussed the  mysterious  question  of  the  Trinity  without 
any  suspicion  of  heresy,  and  steered  safely  along  the 
narrow  strait  between  Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism. 
He  is  even  said,  for  a  time,  to  have  withdrawn  to  the 
monastic  solitudes,  and  to  have  held  religious  inter- 
course with  Benedict  of  Nursia,  and  his  followers. 
All  this  constitutes  the  extraordinary,  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  Consolation  of  Philosophy,  which 
appears  as  the  last  work  of  Roman  letters,  rather  than 
as  eminent  among  Christian  writings.  It  is  equally 
surprising  that  in  such  an  age  and  by  such  a  man,  in 
his  imprisonment  and  under  the  terrors  of  approaching 
death,  Consolation  should  be  found  in  Philosophy 
rather  than  in  Religion ;  that  he  should  have  sought 


444  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

his  examples  of  patience  in  Socrates  with  his  hemlock 
cup,  or  among  the  arguments  of  the  Garden  or  the 
Porch,  rather  than  in  the  Gospel  or  the  Legends  of 
Christian  martyrdom.  From  the  beginning  of  the 
book  to  the  end,  there  is  nothing  distinctly  Christian  ; 
its  religion  is  no  higher  than  Theism ;  almost  the 
whole  might  have  been  written  by  Cicero  in  exile,  or 
by  Marcus  Antoninus  under  some  reverse  of  fortune. 
The  long  and  enduring  popularity  of  the  Consolation 
of  Philosophy  during  the  dark  ages  completes  the 
singular  and  anomalous  character  of  the  work  itself. 

This  all-accomplished,  all-honored  man  was  not  only 
De»th  of  torn  away  from  his  library,  inlaid  with  ivory 
iua'  and  glass,  from  the  enjoyment  of  ample 
wealth  and  as  ample  honor,  from  the  esteem  of  his 
friends  and  the  love  of  his  family,  left  to  pine  in  a  re- 
mote and  lonely  prison,  and  then  released  by  the  pub- 
lic executioner  —  the  manner  of  his  death,  if  we  are 
to  trust  our  authorities,  was  peculiarly  inhuman.  He 
was  first  tortured,  a  cord  was  tightly  twisted  round  his 
forehead,  whether  or  not  to  extort  confession  of  his 
suspected  treason  ;  and  he  was  then  beaten  to  death 
with  a  club.1 

Nor  was  the  vengeance  of  Theodoric  satiated  with 
the  blood  of  Boetm'us.  Theodoric,  dreading  the  in- 
fluence of  Symmachus,  the  head  of  the  Senate,  a  man 
of  the  highest  virtues ;  and  suspecting,  lest,  in  his  in- 
Bymmachus.  dignation  at  the  death  of  his  son-in-law,  he 
should  engage  or  had  engaged  in  some  desperate  plot 
against  the  Gothic  kingdom,  summoned  him  to  Ra- 
M»y  is,  626.  venna,  where  his  head  was  struck  off  by  the 
executioner.2  This  was  followed  by  the  imprisonment 

l  Anonym.  Tales,  p.  626.  *  Anonym.  Tales,  p.  627. 


CHAP.  HI.  VENGEANCE  OF  THEODORIC.  445 

of  Pope  John,  and  his  death.  Throughout  these  mel- 
ancholy scenes,  the  historian  is  reduced  to  a  sad  alter- 
native. He  must  either  suppose  that  the  clear  intellect 
and  generous  character  of  Theodoric  had  become  en- 
feebled by  age ;  his  temper  soured  by  the  sudden  and 
harassing  anxieties,  which  seemed  to  break  so  unsea- 
sonably on  the  peace  of  his  declining  years,  and  the  in- 
gratitude of  his  Roman  subjects  for  above  thirty  years 
of  mild  and  equitable  rule;  those  subjects  now  would 
scarcely  await  his  death  to  attempt  to  throw  off  the 
yoke,  and  would  inevitably  league  with  the  East  against 
his  infant  heir.  Theodoric,  therefore,  blinded  by  un- 
worthy suspicions,  yielded  himself  up  to  the  basest 
informers,  and  closed  a  reign  of  justice  and  humanity, 
with  a  succession  of  acts,  cruel,  sanguinary,  and  wan- 
tonly revengeful.  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  he  must  con- 
clude, that  notwithstanding  his  protestations  of  inno- 
cence, Boethius  and  his  friends,  dazzled  by  patriotic 
visions  of  the  restoration  of  the  Roman  power,  or, 
what  is  less  likely,  considering  the  philosophic  tone  of 
his  religion,  by  orthodox  zeal,  had  tampered  at  least 
with  the  enemies  of  the  existing  government ;  and  that 
the  Roman  Senate  looked  forward  in  more  than  quiet 
prophetic  hope,  in  actual  traitorous  correspondence,  to 
that  invasion  from  the  East,  which  took  place  not  many 
years  after  the  death  of  Theodoric.  Both  views  are 
perhaps  true.  Theodoric  was  a  father,  a  Goth.  Kings 
discriminate  not  between  the  aspirations  of  their  sub- 
jects for  revolt,  and  actual  plans  for  revolt ;  they  are 
bound  to  be  far-sighted;  their  vision  becomes  more 
jealously  acute,  the  more  remote  and  indistinct  the 
objects  ;  treason  in  men's  hearts  becomes  treason  in 
act.  On  the  other  hand,  insolent  Roman  vanity,  stern 


446  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  in. 

religious  zeal,  were  not  likely  to  be  coldly,  timorously 
prudent ;  desires,  hopes  would  find  words ;  words  eager 
hearers,  hearers  become  informers ;  and  informers  are 
not  too  faithful  reporters.  Goths,  Arians,  courtiers, 
might,  even  with  no  dishonest  or  sinister  intent,  hear 
conspiracy  in  every  boast  of  Roman  freedom,  in  every 
reminiscence  of  Roman  pride. 

Theodoric  was  now  in  his  74th  year ;  almost  the  last 
act  of  his  reign  was  the  nomination  of  the  successor 
of  John.  His  interposition  was  enforced  by  the  fierce 
contentions  which  followed  the  death  of  that  prelate. 
His  choice  fell  on  Felix,  a  Samnite,  a  learned  and  a 
blameless  man.  But  the  clergy  and  the  people,  who 
pope  Felix,  were  agitated  with  strife,  threatening  the 
conJfrated  peace  of  the  city,  and  a  renewal  of  the 
July  12.  bloody  scenes  at  the  election  of  Laurentius 
and  Symmachus,  united  in  stern  resistance  to  the  nom- 
ination, in  which  they  had  been  allowed  no  voice.1 
Theodoric  in  his  calm  wisdom  came  to  an  agreement 
to  regulate  future  elections  —  an  agreement,  which  in 
theory  subsisted,  till  the  election  of  the  Pope  was 
transferred  to  the  College  of  Cardinals.  The  Pope 
was  to  be  chosen  by  the  free  suffrages  of  the  clergy 
and  people,  but  might  not  assume  his  office  till  con- 
firmed by  the  sovereign.  For  his  confirmation  the 
Pope  made  a  certain  payment  to  be  distributed  among 
the  poor.  On  this  understanding  the  clergy  and  the 
city  acquiesced  in  the  nomination  of  Pope  Felix.2 

1  Cassiod.  Var.  viii.  15.  This  nomination  was  absolute.  Atliularic 
writes  thus:  " Oportebat  enim  arbitrio  boni  prim-ipis  (Tin-ode. rk-i)  obediri, 
qui  sapienti  deliberatione  pertractans,  quamvis  in  alun>\  r< //'<,/< w,  talcm 
visas  est  pontificem  delegisse,  ut  nulli  merito  debeat  di-)>luvre.  .  .  . 
Recepistis  itaque  virum,  et  divin&  gratia  probabiliter  institutum,  et  regali 
examinations  laudatum." 

3  He  took  quiet  possession  of  the  throne  July  12,  526. 


CHAP.  III.  DEATH  OF  THEODOEIC.  447 

Theodoric  died  in  the  month  following  the  peaceful 
accession  of  Felix  to  the  Pontifical  throne.  Death  of 

M*I  •          •  T  Theodoric 

The  glory  of  Ins  reign  passed  from  the  mem-  Aug.  526. 
ory  of  man  with  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  Italy. 
But  the  hatred  of  his  heretical  opinions  survived  the 
remembrance  of  his  virtues.  He  is  said  to  have  com- 
mitted to  a  Jew,  named  Symmachus  Scolasticus,  the 
framing  of  an  edict,  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Catholics 
from  all  their  churches ; l  a  statement  utterly  irrecon- 
cilable with  his  judicious  and  conciliatory  conduct  on 
the  election  of  the  Pope.  Theodoric,  it  was  observed, 
died  by  the  same  disease  which  smote  the  heresiarch 
Arius  in  the  hour  of  his  triumph.  The  Greek  histo- 
rian of  the  Gothic  war,  who  may  be  taken  as  repre- 
senting the  Byzantine  aversion  to  the  memory  of  The- 
odoric, has  described  him  as  dying  in  a  terrific  agony  of 
remorse  at  his  own  crimes.  A  large  fish  was  placed 
before  Theodoric  at  his  supper.  The  King  Fate  after 
beheld  in  it  the  gory  head  of  Symmachus,  death' 
with  the  teeth  set  and  gnawing  the  lower  lip,  and  the 
eyes  rolling  in  a  fierce  frenzy,  and  sternly  menacing  his 
murderer.  Theodoric,  shivering  with  cold,  rushed  to 
his  chamber ;  he  called  for  more  clothes  to  be  heaped 
upon  his  bed,  but  nothing  could  restore  the  warmth  of 
life ;  he  sent  for  his  physician,  and  bitterly,  and  in  an 
agony  of  tears,  reproached  himself  with  the  death  of 
Symmachus  and  of  Boethius.1  He  died  a  few  days 
after;  and  even  Procopius  adds,  that  these  were  the 
first  and  the  last  acts  of  injustice  committed  by  The- 
odoric against  his  subjects.  But  later  visionaries  did 
not  the  less  pursue  his  soul  to  its  eternal  condemnation ; 

1  Anonym.  Vales. ;  Agnell.  in  Vit.  Pontefic.  Ravennat 

2  Procop.  de  bello  Gothico,  i.  pp.  11, 12. 


448  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

he  was  seen  by  a  hermit  hurled  by  the  ministers  of  the 
divine  retribution  into  the  volcano  of  Lipari :  volcanoes 
in  those  days  were  believed  to  be  the  openings  to  hell.1 
Ravenna  still,  among  the  later  works  of  Justinian 
and  the  Byzantine  Exarchs,  preserves  some  memorials 
of  the  magnificence  of  Theodoric.  Of  his  stately  pal- 
ace remain  but  some  crumbling  and  disfigured  walls. 
Byzantine  art  has  taken  possession  of  his  churches ; 
Justinian  and  Theodora  still  dimly  blaze  in  the  gold 
and  purple  of  the  mosaics.2  The  monument  of  The- 
odoric, perhaps  the  oldest  work  of  Christian  art,  is  still 
entire,  marking  some  tendency  to  that  transition  from 
the  Roman  grandeur  of  bold  and  massy  arches  to  the 
multiplicity  of  mediaeval  details.  Yet  in  these  remains 
nothing  can  be  traced  which  realizes  those  singular  ex- 
pressions of  Cassiodorus,  so  prophetic  it  might  seem  of 
what  was  afterwards  characteristic  of  the  so-called 
Gothic  architecture  —  the  tall,  slender,  reed-like  pil- 
lars, the  lofty  roof  supported,  as  it  were,  by  clustered 
lances.3 

1  Gregor.  i.    Dialog,  iv.  36.    On  this  work,  see  hereafter. 

2  If  we  may  trust  a  passage  in  Agnelli  (Vit.  Pontefic.  Ravenn.  apud  Mu- 
ratori,  iii.  p.  95),  the  church  of  San  Vitale,  erected  in  a  city  the  capital  of 
an   Arian  sovereign,  was  unequalled  in  its  splendor,  we  presume  in  the 
West.    It  cost  26,000  golden  solidi.    Taking  the  golden  sol  id  us  (accordine 
to  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  Economic  Polit.  des  Kmnains,  i.  p.  40)  at  15  francs 
10  c.,  about  12*.  &/.,  between  £15,000  and  £16,000. 

3  "Quid  dicimus  columnarum  junceam  proceritatem.  .  .  .  Erectis  hastil- 
ibus  contineri  moles  illas  sublimissimas  fabricarum."  —  Cassiod.  via.  15. 


CHAP.  IV.  EMPIRE  OF  JUSTINIAN.  449 


CHAPTER  IV. 

JUSTINIAN. 

HISTORY  scarcely  offers  a  more  extraordinary  con- 
trast than  that  between  the  reign  and  the  character  of 
the  Emperor  Justinian.  Under  the  nephew,  colleague, 
and  heir  of  Justin,  the  Roman  Empire  ap-  Empire  of 

...  .  .  .  Justinian. 

pears  suddenly  to  resume  her  ancient  majesty  A.D.  527. 
and  power.  The  signs  of  a  just,  able,  and  vigorous 
administration,  internal  peace,  prosperity,  conquest,  and 
splendor  surround  the  master  of  the  Roman  world. 
The  greatest  generals,  since  the  days  perhaps  of  Tra- 
jan, Belisarius  and  Narses  appear  at  the  head  of  the 
Roman  armies.  Persia  is  kept  at  bay,  during  several 
campaigns  if  not  continuously  successful,  yet  honorable 
to  the  arms  of  Rome.  The  tide  of  barbarian  conquest 
is  rolled  back.  Africa,  the  Illyrian  and  Dalmatian  prov- 
inces, Sicily,  Italy,  with  the  ancient  Capital,  are  again 
under  the  empire  of  Rome  ;  the  Vandal  kingdom,  the 
Gothic  kingdom  fall  before  the  irresistible  generals  of 
the  East.  The  frontiers  of  the  empire  are  defended 
with  fortifications,  constructed  at  enormous  cost ; l  but 
become  necessary  now  that  Roman  valor  had  lost  its 
spell  of  awe  over  the  human  mind  ;  and  that  the  per- 
petual migrations  and  movements  from  the  North  and 

1  Procopius  de  ^Edificiis,  passim.    The  first  book  describes  the  ecclesias- 
tical buildings  of  Constantinople;  the  rest  the  fortifications  and  defensive 
buildings  throughout  the  empire. 
VOL.  i.  29 


450  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

the  East  were  continually  propelling  now  and  formidable 
nations  against  the  boundaries  of  the  Roman  world. 
Justinian  aspires  to  be  the  legislator  of  mankind  ;  a  vast 
system  of  jurisprudence  embodies  the  wisdom  of  an- 
cient and  of  imperial  statutes,  mingled  with  some  of 
the  benign  influences  of  Christianity,  of  which  the 
author  might  almost  have  been  warranted  in  the  pie- 
sumptuous  vaticination,  that  it  would  exercise  an  unre- 
pealed  authority  to  the  latest  ages.  The  cities  of  the 
empire  are  adorned  with  buildings,  civil  as  well  as  relig- 
ious, of  great  magnificence  and  apparent  durability, 
which,  with  the  comprehensive  legislation,  might  recall 
the  peaceful  days  of  the  Antonines.  The  empire,  at 
least  at  first,  is  restored  to  religious  unity :  Catholicism 
resumes  its  sway,  and  Arianism,  so  long  its  rival,  dies 
out  in  remote  and  neglected  congregations.  In  Spain 
alone  it  is  the  religion  of  the  sovereign. 

The  creator  of  this  new  epoch  in  Roman  greatness, 
at  least  he  who  filled  the  throne  during  its  creation,  the 
Emperor  Justinian,  unites  in  himself  the  most  opposite 
vices,  —  insatiable  rapacity  and  lavish  prodigality,  in- 
tense pride  and  contemptible  weakness,  unmeasured 
ambition  and  dastardly  cowardice.  He  is  the  uxorious 
slave  of  his  empress,  whom,  after  she  had  ministered 
to  the  licentious  pleasures  of  the  populace  as  a  courte- 
san, and  as  an  actress,  in  the  most  immodest  exhibitions 
(we  make  due  allowance  for  the  malicious  exaggera- 
tions in  the  secret  history  of  Procopius),  in  defiance  of 
decency,  of  honor,  of  the  remonstrances  of  his  friends, 
and  of  religion,  he  had  made  the  partner  of  his  throne. 
In  the  Christian  Emperor  seem  to  meet  the  crimes  of 
those,  who  won  or  secured  their  empire  by  the  assassi- 
nation of  all  whom  they  feared,  the  passion  for  public 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  EMPRESS   THEODORA.  451 

diversions  without  the  accomplishments  of  Nero  or  the 
brute  strength  of  Commodus,  the  dotage  of  Claudius. 
Constantinople  might  appear  to  retrograde  to  paganism. 
The  peace  of  the  city  and  even  the  stability  of  the  em- 
pire are  endangered  not  by  foreign  invasion,  not  at  first 
by  a  dangerous  rival  for  the  throne,  nor  even  by  relig- 
ious dissensions,  but  by  the  factions  of  the  Circus,  the 
partisans  of  the  Blue  and  of  the  Green,  by  the  colors 
worn  in  the  games  by  the  contending  charioteers.  Jus- 
tinian himself,  during  the  memorable  sedition,  the  Nike, 
had  nearly  abandoned  the  throne,  and  fled  before  a  des- 
picable antagonist.  "  The  throne  is  a  glorious  sepul- 
chre," exclaimed  the  prostitute  whom  he  had  raised  to 
that  throne,  and  Justinian  and  the  empire  are  saved  by 
her  courage.  This  imperious  woman,  even  if  from  ex- 
haustion or  lassitude  she  discontinued,  or  at  least  con- 
descended to  disguise  those  vices  which  dishonored  her 
husband,  in  her  cruelties  knew  no  restraint.  And  these 
cruelties,  exercised  in  order  to  gratify  her  rapacity,  if 
not  in  sheer  caprice,  as  a  substitute  for  that  excitement 
which  had  lost  its  keenness  and  its  zest,  are  almost  more 
culpable  indications  of  the  Emperor's  weakness.  This 
meanness  of  subservience  to  female  influence  becomes 
the  habit  of  the  court,  and  the  great  Belisarius,  like  his 
master,  is  ruled  and  disgraced  by  an  insolent  and  profli- 
gate wife.  Nor  do  either  of  them,  in  shame,  or  in  con- 
scious want  of  Christian  holiness,  stand  aloof  from  the 
affairs  of  that  religion,  whose  precepts  and  whose  spirit 
they  thus  trample  under  foot.  Theodora,  a  bigot  with- 
out faith,  a  heretic,  it  might  almost  be  presumed,  with- 
out religious  convictions,  by  the  superior  strength  of 
her  character,  domineers  in  this  as  in  other  respects 
over  the  whole  court,  mingles  in  all  religious  intrigues, 


452  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY".  BOOK  III. 

appoints  to  the  highest  ecclesiastical  dignities,  sells  the 
Papacy  itself.  Her  charities  alone  (if  we  except  h  -r 
masculine  courage,  and  no  doubt  that  great  ability 
which  mastered  the  inferior  mind  of  her  husband),  if 
they  sprung  from  lingering  womanly  tenderness,  or  that 
inextinguishable  kindness  which  Christianity  sometimes 
infuses  into  the  hardest  hearts,  if  they  were  not  de- 
signed as  a  deliberate  compromise  with  heaven  for  her 
vices  and  cruelties,  may  demand  our  admiration.  The 
feeling  which  induced  the  degraded  and  miserable  vic- 
tim of  the  lusts  and  contempt  of  men  to  found,  per- 
haps, the  first  penitentiaries  for  her  sisters  in  that 
wretched  class,  as  it  shows  her  superior  to  the  base  fear 
of  awakening  remembrances  of  her  own  former  shame, 
may  likewise  be  considered  as  an  enforced  homage  to 
female  virtue.  Even  in  Theodora  we  would  discover 
the  very  feeblest  emotions  of  Christianity.  Justinian 
aspires  too  to  be  the  legislator  not  of  the  empire  alone,1 
but  of  Christendom,  enacts  ordinances  for  the  whole 
Church  ;  and  unhappily,  not  content  with  establishing 
the  doctrines  of  Nicea  and  Chalcedon  as  the  religion  of 
the  Empire,  by  his  three  Chapters  replunges  Christen- 
dom into  religious  strife. 

The  reign  of  Justinian,  during  the  period  between 
the  death  of  Theodoric  and  the  conquest  of  Italy,  was 
occupied  by  the  Persian  and  African  Avars, 
and  the  commotions  arising  out  of  the  public 
A.D.  626-533.  ganjgg  m  Constantinople.  The  only  event 
which  commands  religious  interest  is  the  suppression  of 
the  schools  in  Athens.  That  last  vain  struggle  of 

1  I  have  studied,  besides  the  ordinary  authorities,  a  life  of  Justinian  by 
Ludewig.  —  Hal.  Salic.  1731.  To  the  great  lawyer  the  vices  and  weak- 
nesses of  Justinian  are  lost  in  admiration  of  his  jurisprudence. 


CHAP.  IV.      SUPPRESSION  OF  SCHOOLS  AT  ATHENS.        453 

Grecian  philosophy  against  Christianity,  which  had  so 
signally  failed  even  with  an  Emperor  Julian  at  its  head ; 
that  Platonic  theism  which  had  endeavored  to  give  new 
life  to  paganism,  by  enlisting  the  imagination  in  its  ser- 
vice, and  establishing  a  sensible  communication  with 
the  unseen  world ;  which,  in  order  to  command  the  in- 
nate superstition  of  mankind,  had  allied  itself  with  mag- 
ic :  and  which  still  (its  better  function)  promulgated 
noble  precepts  of  somewhat  dreamy  morality ;  suppression 

r        .  .  *       of  Schools  at 

was  not  allowed  to  expire  like  a  worn-out  vet-  Athena, 
eran  in  peaceful  dignity.  It  was  forcibly  expelled  from 
the  ancient  groves  and  porches  of  Athens,  where  re- 
cently, under  Proclus,  it  had  rallied,  as  it  were,  for  a 
last  gleam  of  lustre ;  it  was  driven  out  by  the  impa- 
tient zeal  of  Justinian.  Seven  followers  of  Proclus,  it  is 
well  known,  sought  a  more  hospitable  retreat  in  Persia ; 
but  the  Magianism  of  that  kingdom  was  not  much  more 
tolerant  than  the  Christianity  of  the  East.  Philosophy 
found  no  resting-place  ;  and  probably  few  of  her  disci- 
ples could  enjoy  the  malicious  consolation  which  might 
have  been  drawn  from  the  manner  in  which  she  had 
long  been  revenging  herself  on  Christianity  by  sug- 
gesting, quickening  with  her  contentious  spirit,  and  aid- 
ing with  all  her  subtleties  of  language  those  disputes, 
which  had  degraded  the  faith  of  Jesus  from  its  sublime, 
moral,  and  religious  dictatorship  over  the  human  mind. 
Justinian,  when  he  determined  to  attempt  the  recon- 
quest  of  Africa,  might  take  the  high  position  of  the 
vindicator  of  the  Catholics  from  long,  cruel,  and  almost 
unrelenting  persecution.  The  African  Catholics  had 
enjoyed  a  short  gleam  of  peace  during  the  reign  of 
Hilderic,  who  had  deviated  into  toleration,  unknown  to 
the  Arianism  of  the  Vandals  alone ;  he  had  restored 


454  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

about  two  hundred  bishops  to  their  churches.  The 
Catholics  might  behold  with  terror  the  overthrow  of 
the  just  Hilderic  by  the  stern  Gilimer,  and  might  rea- 
sonably dread  a  renewal  of  the  dark  days  of  the  great 
persecutors,  of  Thrasimund  and  of  Hunneric.  The 
voices  of  those  confessors,  who  are  said  to  have  spoken 
clearly  and  distinctly  after  their  tongues  had  been  cut 
out  down  to  the  root ;  who  might  be  heard  to  speak 
publicly  (for  one  of  them  was  a  deacon)  by  the  curious 
or  the  devout  in  Constantinople  itself,  might  excite  the 
compassion  and  animate  the  zeal  of  Justinian.1  The 

1  This  is  the  one  post-apostolic  miracle  which  appears  to  rest  on  the  strong- 
est evidence.  If  we  are  to  trust  Victor  Vitensis,  we  cannot  take  refuge  in 
the  notion  that  their  speech  was  imperfect.  Of  one  at  least,  the  Deacon 
Eeparatus,  he  asserts  that  he  spoke  both  clearly  and  distinctly.  The  words 
of  Procopius  are  uKpai<j>vel  rf)  Qwy.  If  we  listen  to  ./Eneas  of  Gaza,  it  is 
equally  impossible  to  recur  to  the  haste,  or  slovenly  execution  of  the  punish- 
ment by  the  barbarian  executioner:  he  states,  from  his  own  ocular  inspec- 
tion, that  the  tongue  had  been  torn  away  by  the  roots.  —  Victor  Vitens.  v. 
6;  Ruinart,  p.  483,  487;  ./Eneas  Gazensis  in  Theophrasto  in  Biblioth.  Pair, 
viii.  p.  664,  665;  Justinian,  codex  i.  tit.  xxvii. ;  Marcelli  in  Chronic.  Pro- 
cop,  de  Bell.  Vandal,  i.  7,  p.  385;  Gregor.  Magn.  Dialog,  iii.  32.  The 
question  is,  the  credibility  of  such  witnesses  in  such  an  age.  A  recent 
traveller  has  furnished  a  curious  illustration  of  this  one  post-apostolic  mira- 
cle which  puzzled  Gibbon.  The  writer  is  describing  Djezzar  Pasha's  cruel- 
ties:—  "Each  Emir  was  held  down  in  a  squatting  position,  with  his  hands 
tied  behind  him,  and  his  face  turned  upwards.  The  officiating  tefukutchy 
now  approached  his  victim;  and  standing  over  him,  as  if  about  to  extract  a 
tooth,  forced  open  his  mouth,  and,  darting  a  hook  through  the  top  of  the 
tongue,  pulled  it  out  until  the  root  was  exposed :  one  or  two  passes  of  a 
razor  sufficed  to  cut  it  out.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  however,  that  the  tonyues 
grew  again  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  speech,"  —  Colonel  Churchill's 
Lebanon,  vol.  iii.  p.  384.  A  friend  has  suggested  this  more  extraordinary 
passage:  — "  Zal  Khan  (condemned  by  Aga  Mohammed  Khan  to  lose  his 
eyes)  loaded  the  tyrant  with  curses.  '  Cut  out  his  tongue  '  was  the  second 
order.  This  mandate  was  imperfectly  executed ;  and  the  loss  of  half  this 
member  deprived  him  of  speech.  Being  afterwards  persuaded  that  its 
bring  cut  close  to  the  root  would  enable  him  to  speak  so  as  to  be  under- 
stood, he  submitted  to  the  operation,  and  the  effect  has  been,  that  his  voice, 
though  indistinct  and  thick,  is  yet  intelligible  to  persons  accustomed 
U>  converse  with  him.  This  I  experienced  from  daily  intercourse.  He 


CHAP.  IV.  CONQUEST  OF  AFRICA.  455 

frugal  John  of  Cappadocia,  the  minister  of  Justinian, 
remonstrated  against  an  expedition  so  costly  and  so  un- 
certain in  its  event  as  the  invasion  of  Africa.  His  appre- 
hensions seemed  justified  by  the  disastrous  and  ignomin- 
ious failure  of  that  under  Basiliscus.  But  John  was 
silenced  by  a  devout  bishop.  The  holy  man  had  seen 
a  vision,  which  commanded  the  Catholic  Emperor  to 
proceed  without  fear  to  the  rescue  of  his  Catholic 
brethren.  Africa,  subdued  by  the  arms  of  Belisarius, 
returned  at  once  under  the  dominion  of  the  Oonquest  of 
empire  and  of  Catholicism.  The  Vandal Africa- 
Arianism  had  made  no  proselytes  among  the  hereditary 
disciples  of  Cyprian  and  Augustine,  the  hearers  of  Ful- 
gentius  and  of  Augustine's  scholars.  Persecution  had 
its  usual  effect  when  it  stops  short  of  extermination  ;  it 
had  only  strengthened  the  inflexible  orthodoxy  of  the 
province.  One  imperial  edict  was  sufficient  A.D.  533. 
to  restore  all  the  churches  to  the  Catholic  worship. 
Donatism,  which  still  survived,  though  included  under 

often  spoke  to  me  of  his  sufferings.  .  .  ."  Sir  John  Malcolm  adds,  that 
he  is  "  ignoranjt  of  anatomy,  .  .  .  but  the  facts  are  as  stated,  and  I  had 
them  from  the  very  best  authority,  old  Zal  Khan  himself."  —  Sketches  of 
Persia,  ii.  p.  116.  This  mutilation,  in  fact,  is  common  in  the  East.  I  have 
the  authority  of  Sir  John  Macneill,  "  that  he  knew  several  persons  who  had 
been  subjected  to  that  punishment,  who  spoke  so  intelligibly  as  to  be  able 
to  transact  business.  More  than  one  of  them,  finding  that  my  curiosity  and 
interest  was  excited,  showed  me  the  stump.'1''  Sir  John  Macneill's  description 
of  the  mode  of  operation  fully  coincides  with  the  following  opinion  of  the 
most  distinguished  surgical  authority  in  England :  —  "  There  seems  to  me 
nothing  mysterious  in  the  histories  of  the  excision  of  the  tongue.  The  mod- 
ification of  the  voice  forming  articulate  speech  is  effected  especially  py  the 
motions  of  the  soft  palate,  the  tongue,  and  the  lips,  and  partly  by  means  of 
the  teeth  and  cheeks.  The  mutilation  of  any  one  of  these  organs  will  affect 
the  speech  as/if?1  as  that  organ  is  concerned  and  no  farther,  the  effect  being 
to  render  the  speech  more  or  less  imperfect,  but  not  to  destroy  it  altogether. 
The  excision  of  the  whole  tongue  is  an  impossible  operation."  What 
Colonel  Churchill  attributed  to  the  growth  of  the  tongue  is  explained  in 
mother  manner. 


456  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

the  same  condemnation,  was  endowed  with  more  obsti- 
nate vitality,  and  was  hardly  extinguished  before  the 
final  disruption  of  Africa  from  the  great  Christian  sys- 
tem by  Mohammedanism. 

The  Ostrogothic  kingdom  of  Theodoric,  in  the 
mean  time,  was  declining  through  internal  dissension  ; 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  female  sway,  and  that  of 
a  king  too  early  raised  to  the  throne,  too  soon  eman- 
cipated from  his  mother's  control  by  the  mistaken 
fondness  of  the  Goths,  who,  while  they  desired  to 
Ostrogothic  educate  him  as  a  warlike  Amala  among  his 
kingdom.  noble  peers,  abandoned  him  to  the  unchecked 
corruption  of  Roman  manners.  Rome  conquered 
Athalaric  by  her  vices.  Premature  debauchery  wasted 
Death  of  the  bodily  frame,  and  paralyzed  the  intellect 
Athaianc.  Q£  t^e  young  Gothic  king.  Even  the  all- 
accomplished  Amalasuntha,  who  spoke  the  languages 
of  all  her  subjects  with  the  most  exquisite  perfection, 
and,  in  some  degree,  blended  the  virtues  of  both  races, 
yet  wanted  somewhat  of  the  commanding  strength  of 
character  which  hallowed  the  noble  Teutonic  female. 
In  an  evil  hour,  while  her  son  was  sinking  towards  the 
Marriage  and  grave,  she  bestowed  her  hand  and  the  king- 

death  of  1-1  i         mi        I 

a.  dom  on    her  cousin,  the  unworthy    Iheodo- 


tus.  Theodotus,  master  of  the  crown,  imprisoned 
Amalasuntha,  and  soon  put  her  to  death.  He  then 
witigee  dragged  out  a  few  years  of  inglorious  sov- 
ereignty, till  the  indignant  Goths  wrested 
away  the  sceptre  to  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  valiant 
Witiges. 

Justinian  watched  the  affairs  of  Italy  without  "ce- 
traying  his  ambitious  designs  ;  but  all  who  were  dissat- 
isfied with  the  state  of  affairs,  turned  their  eyes  to  the 


CHAP.  IV.  BONIFACE  II.  457 

East.  Amalasuntha  at  one  time  had  determined  to 
abandon  the  kingdom,  to  place  herself  under  the  pro- 
tection of  Justinian :  the  fleet  was  ready  to  sail  to 
Dyrrachium.  Constant  amicable  intercourse  was  still 
taking  place  between  the  Catholic  clergy  of  the  East 
and  West,  between  Constantinople  and  Rome,  between 
Justinian  and  the  rapid  succession  of  Pontiffs,  who 
occupied  the  throne  during  the  ten  years  between  the 
death  of  Theodoric  and  the  invasion  of  Italy. 

Felix   IV.  had  just   been    acknowledged    as   Pope 
when  Theodoric  died ;  his  peaceful  pontificate  Pope  Feiix 
lasted  four  years.     The  contests  for  the  Pa-  526-530. 
pacy  were   not    prevented   by   the  agreement    under 
Theodoric.     A  double  election  took  place  on  the  death 
of  Felix.     The  partisans  of  either  faction  were  pre- 
pared for  a  fierce  struggle,  when  the  timely  death   of 
his   rival   Dioscorus   left  Boniface    II.   in   undisputed 
possession  of  the  throne.     Yet  so  exasperated  October  14. 

-r,        .  „  ,  ,  Boniface  II. 

were  me  parties,  that  Boniface  would  not  A.D.  530. 
allow  his  competitor  to  sleep  in  his  grave ;  he  fulmi- 
nated an  anathema  against  him  as  an  anti-Pope,  and 
compelled  the  clergy  to  sign  the  decree.  It  was  re- 
voked during  the  next  pontificate.  Boniface  was  of 
Gothic  blood,1  perhaps  promoted  by  the  Gothic  party. 
He  attempted  a  bold  measure  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the 
disgraceful  and  disastrous  scenes  of  violence  A.D.  531. 
and  bribery,  which  now  seemed  inveterate  in  the  Papal 
elections.  He  proposed  that  during  his  lifetime  the 
Pope  should  nominate  his  successor ;  he  proceeded  to 
designate  Vigilius,  a  deacon,  who  afterwards  ascended 
the  Papal  throne.  An  obsequious  Council  ratified  this 

1  He  was  the  son  of  Count  Sigisbult  or  Sigisvult,  though  called  a  Roman 
by  Anastasius.  —  Anastas.  hi  Vit. 


458  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

extraordinary  proceeding.  Both  parties,  however, 
equally  resented  this  attempt  to  wrest  from  them  their 
A.D.  532.  undoubted  privilege,  and  thus  to  reduce  the 
Papacy  to  an  ordinary  inheritance  at  the  disposition  of 
its  possessor.  In  a  second  Council  they  showed  their 
repugnance  and  astonishment  at  the  daring  innovation. 
The  Pope  acknowledged  his  own  decree  to  be  an  act 
of  treason  against  ecclesiastical  and  even  civil  law, 
burned  it  in  public,  and  left  the  election  of  his  suc- 
cessor to  proceed  in  the  old  course.1  There  were 
again  at  the  death  of  Boniface  fierce  strife,  undisguised 
bribery,  and  shame  and  horror  after  all  was  over. 
Remedies  were  sought  for  this  ineradicable  disease. 
Dec.  si,  532.  On  the  death  of  Boniface,  the  Roman  Senate 
resumed  some  of  its  ancient  authority,  and  issued  an 
edict  prohibiting  these  base  and  venal  proceedings, 
during  which  the  funds  designed  for  the  poor  were 
loaded  with  debts,  even  the  sacred  vessels  sold  for  these 
simoniacal  uses.  Athalaric  confirmed  this  edict.2  John 
II.,  whose  former  name  was  Mercurius,  ruled  for  three 
years.  During  his  papacy  arrived  a  splendid  embassy 
from  the  East,  with  magnificent  offerings,  golden 
vessels,  chalices  of  silver,  jewels,  and  curtains  of  cloth 
of  gold  for  the  Church  of  St.  Peter.  The  pretext 
was  a  deferential  consultation  with  the  Pope,  concerning 
A.D.  634.  the  sleepless  monks,  who  were  still  not  with- 
out some  Nestorian  tendencies.  At  the  same  time 

1  Anastas.  in  Vit,  and  Labbe,  p.  1690. 

8  "  Ita  facilitates  pauperum  extortis  promissionibus  ingravasse,  ut  (quod 
dictu  nefas  est)  etiam  sacra  vasa  emptioni  publics  viderentur  exposita."  — 
Athalar.  Reg.  Epist.  apud  Labbe,  p.  1743.  This  law  annulled  all  bargains 
made  for  the  appointment  to  bishoprics.  It  declared  the  offence  to  be  sac- 
rilege; and  limited  the  payments  to  the  chancery  on  contested  elections,— 
for  the  papacy  to  3000  golden  solidi,  for  archbishoprics  or  bishoprics  to  2000 
The  largess  to  the  poor  was  restricted  to  500. 


CHAP.  IV.  AGAPETUS.  459 

came  an  ambassador  to  Theodotus,  now  Ostrogothic 
King,  with  expostulations,  or  rather  imperious  me- 
naces, on  alleged  violations  of  the  treaties  -between  the 
Gothic  kingdom  and  the  Empire.  During  the  short 
and  troubled  reign  of  Theodotus,  Justinian  received 
petitions  from  all  parts  of  Italy,  and  from  all  persons, 
lay  as  well  as  clerical,  with  the  air  and  tone  of  its 
Sovereign. 

The  aged  Agapetus  had  succeded  to  the  Roman  See 
before  Justinian  prepared  for  the  actual  in-  Agapetus. 
vasion  of  Italy.  In  the  agony  of  his  fear  June  3'  635' 
Theodotus  the  Goth  had  recourse  to  the  same  measure 
which  Theodoric  had  adopted  in  his  pride.  He  per- 
suaded or  compelled  the  Pope  to  proceed  on  an  em- 
bassy to  Constantinople,  to  ward  off  the  impending 
danger,  to  use  his  influence  and  authority  lest  a  Roman 
and  orthodox  Emperor  should  persist  in  his  attempt  to 
wrest  Italy  and  Rome  from  a  barbarous  Arian  ;  and 
Theodotus  commanded  the  Prelate  to  be  the  bearer 
of  menaces  more  befitting  the  herald  of  war.  He 
was  to  declare  the  determination  of  the  Goth,  if  Jus- 
tinian should  fulfil  his  hostile  designs,  to  put  the 
Senate  to  the  sword,  and  raze  the  city  of  the  CaBsars 
to  the  ground.1  Like  his  predecessor,  Agapetus  was 
received  with  the  highest  honors.  Justinian  had  already 
suspended,  for  a  short  time,  his  warlike  preparations  ; 
but  Agapetus  found  affairs  more  within  his  A 

.  1-1  i  i     -i     i  •  T      i  iQ  Const 

province,  which  enabled  him  to  display  to  tinopie. 
the  despot  of  the  East  the  bold  and  independent 
tone  assumed  even  against  the  throne  by  the  ecclesias- 
tics of  the  West.  The  See  of  Constantinople  was 
vacant.  The  all-powerful  Theodora  summoned  Anthi- 

1  The  embassy  was  in  Constantinople,  Feb.  2,  536. 


Constan- 


460  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

mus,  bishop  of  Trebisond,  to  the  Metropolitan  diocese. 
Anthimus  was  suspected  as  tainted  with  Eutychian 
opinions.  Agapetus  resolutely  declined  to  communi- 
cate with  a  Prelate,  whose  appointment  not  merely 
violated  the  Canon  against  translation  from  one  see  to 
another,  but  one  likewise  of  doubtful  orthodoxy.  The 
venal  partisans  of  Anthimus  and  of  Theodora  insin- 
uated countercharges  of  Nestorian  inclinations  against 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.2  Agapetus,  in  a  conference, 
condescended  to  satisfy  the  Emperor  as  to  his  own 
unimpeachable  orthodoxy.  Justinian  sternly  com- 
manded him  to  communicate  with  Anthimus.  "  With 
the  Bishop  of  Trebisond,"  replied  the  unawed  ecclesi- 
astic, "when  he  has  returned  to  his  diocese,  and  ac- 
cepted the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  letters  of 
Leo."  The  Emperor  in  a  louder  voice  commanded 
him  to  acknowledge  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  on 
pain  of  immediate  exile.  "  I  came  hither  in  my  old 
age  to  see,  as  I  supposed,  a  religious  and  a  Christian 
Emperor,  I  find  a  new  Diocletian.  But  I  fear  not 
Kings'  menaces,  I  am  ready  to  lay  down  my  life  for 
the  truth."  The  feeble  mind  of  Justinian  passed  at 
once  from  the  height  of  arrogance  to  admiration  and 
respect :  he  listened  to  the  charges  advanced  by  Aga- 
petus against  the  orthodoxy  of  Anthimus.  In  his 
turn  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  was  summoned  to 
render  an  account  of  his  theology  before  the  Emperor, 
convicted  of  Eutychianism,  and  degraded  from  the  see. 
Mennas,  nominated  in  his  room,  was  consecrated  by  the 
Pope.  Thus  one  patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  de- 
Apni  22, 536.  graded,  another  promoted  by  the  influence,  if 
not  by  the  authority  (the  distinction  was  not  marked, 

1  Libellus  de  Reb.  Gestis  ab  Agap.  ad  Constant,  apud  Baronium,  536. 


CHAP.  IV.     ROME   SURRENDERED  TO  BELISAEIUS.  461 

as  in  later  theologic  disputes)  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Agapetus  did  not  live  long  to  enjoy  his  triumph  ;  he 
died  at  Constantinople  ;  his  funeral  rites  were  cele- 
brated with  great  magnificence  ;  his  body  sent  to  Rome. 
His  memory  was  venerated  alike  in  the  East  and  in  the 
West. 

But  the  next  few  years  beheld  the  Papacy  degraded 
from  its  lofty  and  independent  dignity.    Rome  Justinian  con 

•"  i   •          i          i          •     •  f    -i  i      -n          luers  Italy 

was  now  within  the  dominions  ot  the  sole  Lin-  ami  Rome. 
peror  of  the  world.  Belisarius,  in  his  unchecked  career 
of  conquest,  had  subdued  Africa,  Sicily,  Naples  ;  he 
entered  undefended  Rome  as  its  master.1  The  Pope 
became  first  the  victim,  then  the  base  instrument  of  the 
temporal  power.  Rome,  now  a  city  of  the  Eastern 
Empire,  was  brought  at  once  within  the  sphere  of  the 
female  intrigues  of  Constantinople  ;  one  Pope,  Silverius, 
suffered  degradation  ;  another,  the  most  doubtful  char- 
acter who  had  yet  sat  on  the  throne  of  St.  Peter,  receiv- 
ed his  appointment  through  the  arts  of  the  infamous 
Theodora,  and  suffered  the  judicial  punishment  of  his 
weaknesses  and  crimes,  —  persecution,  shame,  remorse. 
Silverius,  the  new  Pope,  was  the  son  of  the  former 
Pontiff  Hormisdas,  the  legitimate  son,  born  before  the 
father  had  taken  holy  orders.  Silverius  was  Rome  sm- 
Bishop  of  Rome  by  command  of  Theodotus, 


yet  undegraded  from  the  Ostrogothic  throne.2  But 
the  Romans  saw  with  undisguised  but  miscalculating 
pride,  the  Roman  banners,  floating  over  the  army  of 
Belisarius,  approach  their  walls.  The  Pope  dared  (the 
Goths  were  in  confusion  at  the  degradation  of  The- 

1  See  the  war  in  Gibbon,  ch.  xli. 

2  Sine  deliberatione  decreti,  Vit  Sylv.  Confer.  Marcell.  Chron.  Jaffe 
Begesta,  sub  ann.  536.    He  was  consecrated  June  8. 


!  ,2  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

odotus,  and  the  elevation  of  Witiges)  to  urge  the 
Romans  to  send  an  ambassador  to  hail  the  deliverer 
of  the  city  from  the  barbaric  Goth.1  The  Bishop  of 
Rome  received  the  General  of  the  East,  and,  as  it  were. 
restored  Rome  to  the  Roman  empire.  Belisarim  v,  a< 
lord  of  the  Capitol,  and  at  once  the  consequence  of 
Rome's  subjugation  to  the  East  broke  upon  the  Pope 
and  upon  Rome.  Theodora  had  never  abandoned  her 
hopes  of  promoting  her  favorite,  Anthimus,  to  the  See 
of  Constantinople  ;  she  entered  into  a  league  with  the 
Deacon  Vigilius,  who  had  accompanied  the  Pope  Aga- 
vigiiiiu.  petus  into  the  East.  Vigilius  was  a  man  of 
unmeasured  ambition,  and  great  ability  ;  2  he  had  been 
designated  as  his  successor  by  Pope  Boniface  ;  and 
when  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  clergy  and  the  people 
wrested  from  Boniface  the  usurped  right  of  nominating 
his  successor,  Vigilius  was  left  to  brood  over  other 
means  of  obtaining  the  pontificate.  The  compact  pro- 
posed by  the  Empress,  and  accepted  by  the  unscrupu- 
lous Vigilius,  stipulated  on  her  part  the  degradation  of 
Silverius,  and  a  large  sum  of  money,  no  doubt  to  secure 
his  election,  and  to  consolidate  his  interest  in  Rome  ; 
on  that  of  the  ecclesiastic,  no  less  than  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  Anthimus,  as  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  The 
degradation  of  Silverius  was  intrusted  not  to  the  all- 
powerful  Belisarius  alone,  but  to  the  surer  hands  of  his 
wife  Antonina,  the  accomplice  of  the  Empress  in  all 
her  intrigues  of  every  kind,  and  her  counterpart  in  the 


1  MoAumz  &  abrovf  ZA&ptof  elf  TOVTO  kvrrytv,  6  rfiode  TTK  nofeus  ha- 
Utepevf.  Procop.  de  B.  G.  i.  c.  14. 

*  "  Lubenter  ergo  suscepit  Vigilius  permissum  ejus,  aniore  episcopates  et 
turi.''  —  Liberal.  Breviar.  c.  sxii. 


CHAP.  IT.  VIGILIUS.  463 

arbitrary  power  with  which  she  ruled  her  glorious  but 
easy  husband.  The  Pope  Silverius  was  accused  of 
treasonable  correspondence  with  the  Goths,  witnesses 
were  suborned  to  support  this  improbable  charge 
against  him  who  had  yielded  up  the  city  to  the  con- 
queror. Belisarius,  it  is  said,  endeavored  to  save  the 
Pope  from  degradation,  by  inducing  him  to  February, 
accede  to  the  wishes  of  Theodora,  to  con- March)  ^ 
demn  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  to  communicate 
with  Anthimus.  The  resolution  of  Silverius,  who 
firmly  rejected  these  propositions,  left  him  the  defence- 
!>.•-<  victim  of  Vigilius  and  of  Antonina.  The  successor 
of  St.  Peter  was  rudely  summoned  to  the  Pincian 
Palace,  the  military  quarters  of  Belisarius.  In  the 
chamber  of  the  General  sat  Antonina  on  the  bed,  with 
her  husband  at  her  feet.  "  What  have  we  done,"  ex- 
claimed the  imperious  woman,  "  to  you,  Pope  Silverius, 
and  to  the  Romans,  that  you  should  betray  us  to  the 
Goths?"  In  an  instant  the  pall  was  rent  from  his 
shoulders  by  a  subdeacon,  he  was  hurried  into  another 
room,  stripped  of  the  rest  of  his  dress,  and  clad  in  that 
of  a  monk.  The  clergy  who  accompanied  him  were 
informed  of  his  degradation  in  a  few  careless  words, 
"  The  Pope  Silverius  is  deposed,  and  is  now  a  monk." 
The  most  extraordinary  part  of  this  strange  transaction 
is  the  utter  ignorance  of  Justinian  of  the  whole  in- 
trigue. From  Patara,  the  place  of  his  banishment, 
Silverius  made  his  way  to  Constantinople,  and  to  the 
amazement  of  the  Emperor  preferred  his  complaint  of 
the  unjust  violence  with  which  he  had  been  expelled 
from  his  See.  Justinian  commanded  his  instant  return 
to  Rome.  If,  on  further  investigation,  it  should  appear 
that  he  had  been  unjustly  accused  of  treason,  he  was 


464  LATIN*  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

to  be  reinstated  in  his  dignity.  The  sudden  reappear- 
ance of  Silverius  in  Rome  (he  had  outsailed  the  mes- 
sengers of  Theodora)  embarrassed  for  a  time,  only  for 
a  short  time,  the  unscrupulous  Vigilius,  and  his  more 
than  imperial  patrons.  By  the  influence  of  Antonina, 
Silverius  was  delivered  up  to  his  rival,  and  banished  by 
him  who  aspired  to  be  the  head  of  Christendom,  to  the 
island  of  Pandataria,  infamous  as  the  place  of  exile  to 
which  the  worst  heathen  emperors  had  consigned  the 
victims  of  their  tyranny.  On  this  wretched  rock  Sil- 
verius soon  closed  his  life,  whether  in  the  course  of 
nature  or  by  violent  means,  seems  to  have  been  known 
with  no  more  certainty  in  his  own  days  than  in  ours.1 

Vigilius  was  now,  by  command  of  Belisarius,2  the 
violins        undisputed  Pontiff  of  Rome.3     He  had  paid 

Pope. 

A.D.  544.  already  a  fearful  price  for  his  advancement, — 
false  accusation,  cruel  oppression,  perhaps  murder.  At 
Rome  he  declares  his  adhesion  to  the  four  councils 
and  to  the  letter  of  Leo ;  he  approves  the  anathema 
of  Mennas  of  Constantinople  against  the  Munophy- 
sites.4  But  four  years  after,  Theodora  demanded,  and 
Vigilius  dared  not  refuse,  the  rest  of  his  unholy  cove- 
nant, at  least  the  base  and  secret  adoption  of  all  her 
heretical  opinions.  In  a  letter  still  extant,5  but  con- 

1  An.istasii  rita.    Liberatus  writes  briefly  and  significantly,  4i  Solus  in- 
gressus  a  suis  ulterius  non  est  visus."  —  Breviar.  c.  xxiii. 

2  'Erspov  Se  apxiepia.  oMyu  ixrrepav  BtyiAww  wopa  /torfffr^daro.     So 
writes  the  Greek  Procopius  of  Belisarius. 

*  The  date  of  his  accession  is  a  point  of  grave  dispute.  If  it  is  reckoned 
from  his  first  nomination  to  the  see,  he  can  only  be  held  an  uncanonical 
usurper  of  an  unvacated  see,  and  that  nomination  must  have  been  null  and 
void.  A  second  election  therefore  has  been  supposed;  but  of  this  event 
there  is  no  accredited  record.  It  is  impossible  so  to  connect  the  broken 
links  of  the  spiritual  genealogy. 

4  A.I).  540,  September  17.  — Mansi.  ix.  35,  38. 

6  The  letter  is  given  by  Liberatus.    One  main  argument  against  its  an- 


CHAP.  IT.  T1GILIUS  POPE.  465 

tested  on  account  of  its  damning  effect  on  one  who 
was,  or  who  afterwards  became  Pope,  rather  than  from 
any  mark,  either  external  or  internal,  of  spuriousness, 
Vigilius  gave  his  deliberate  adhesion  to  Eutychianism. 
The  busy  and  restless  theology  of  the  East  had  now 
raised  a  new  question,  and  Justinian  aspired  to  the 
dignity  of  a  profound  divine,  and  a  legislator  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  as  well  as  of  Christian  civil  affairs.  He 
plunged  with  headstrong  zeal  into  the  controversy.1 
The  Church  was  not  now  disturbed  by  the  sublime, 
if  inexplicable,  dogmas  concerning  the  nature  of  God, 
the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  or  the  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  nature  of  Christ ;  concerning  the  revela- 
tions of  Scripture,  or  even  the  opinions  of  the  ancient 
fathers :  the  orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy  of  certain  writ- 
ings by  bishops,  but  recently  dead,  became  the  subject 
of  Imperial  edicts,  of  a  fifth  so  called  CEcumenic  Coun- 
cil, held  at  Constantinople,  and  a  religious  war  between 
the  East  and  the  West.  Under  the  name  of  the  three 
Chapters,  the  Emperor  and  the  obsequious  Council 

thenticity  is,  that  he  was  never  charged  with  it  by  his  enemies  or  by  Jus- 
tinian. But  it  was  a  private  letter  to  Theodora,  and  contains  this  sentence, 
"  Oportet  ergo,  ut  haec  quse  vobis  scribo,  nullus  agnoscat."  The  letter  may 
not  have  come  to  light  till  after  the  death  of  Theodora.  But,  with  some 
mistrust  of  their  own  feeble  critical  arguments,  the  high  papal  writers  assert 
that  Vigilius,  when  he  wrote  this  letter,  was  only  an  antipope  and  a  schis- 
matic. His  subsequent  legitimate  election  arrayed  him  in  perfect  Christian 
faith  and  virtue.  He  became  officially  orthodox.  Binii  not.  in  Liberatum. 
Dupin  ventures  to  say  that  Liberatus  is  better  authority  than  either  Baronius 
or  Binius. 

1  Justinian  had  already  made  an  essay  of  his  theological  powers.  In 
Palestine  the  controversy  concerning  the  opinions  of  Origen  had  broken  out 
again,  and  caused  violent  popular  tumults.  Pelagius,  the  legate  of  the 
Pope,  and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  Mennas,  urged  the  interference 
of  Justinian.  The  emperor  threw  himself  headlong  into  the  dispute,  and 
issued  an  encyclic  letter,  condemning  the  Origenists :  the  imperial  anathema 
was  subscribed  by  Mennas  and  many  other  bishops  of  Constantinople. 
VOL.  i.  30 


403  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI 

condemned  certain  works  of  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  and  Ibas  of  Edessa.1  These  writ- 
ings, though  questionable  as  the  source  of,  or  as  infected 
with  Nestorianism,  had  passed  uncondemned  by  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  imperial  edict  usurped 
the  form  of  a  confession  of  faith,  and  trespassed  on  the 
exclusive  right  of  the  clergy  to  anathematize  the  holders 
of  erroneous  doctrines.  Great  part  of  the  submissive 
or  consentient  East  received  the  dictates  of  the  imperial 
theologian  ;  the  West  as  generally  and  resolutely  re- 
fused compliance.  Vigilius  was  peremptorily  sum- 
A.D.  544.  moned  to  Constantinople.  He  set  forth, 
loaded  with  the  imprecations  of  the  Roman  people, 
and  assailed  with  volleys  of  stones,  as  the  murderer 
of  Silverius,  and  a  man  of  notorious  cruelty.  It  was 
said  that  he  had  killed  one  of  his  own  secretaries  in 
a  fit  of  passion,  and  caused  his  nephew,  the  son  of  his 
sister,  to  be  scourged  to  death.  "  May  famine  and 
pestilence  pursue  thee  ;  evil  hast  thou  done  to  us,  may 
evil  overtake  thee  wherever  thou  art."  A  strong 
guard  protected  his  person  first  to  Sicily,  and  thence 
after  near  two  years'  delay  to  Constantinople. 

His  departure  from  Rome  was  fortunate  for  himself, 
fortunate  pei'haps  for  the  dignity  of  the  Papacy.  Dur- 
ing his  absence,  Rome  was  besieged  by  the  Goths.  A 
supply  of  corn  sent  by  Vigilius  from  Sicily  was  inter- 

1  The  condemnation  of  the  three  chapters  implied  at  least  a  covert  cen- 
sure of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  I.  The  fathers  of  that  council  had  re- 
ceived Theodoret  into  communion,  and,  content  with  his  condemnation  of 
Nestorius,  had  not  demanded  his  retractation  of  his  writings  against  Cyril 
of  Alexandria.  II.  They  had  inserted  in  their  proceedings  a  letter  from 
Ibas  of  Edessa  to  the  Persian  Maris,  in  which  he  highly  praised  Theodorus 
of  Mopsuestia,  the  master  of  Nestorius,  blamed  Cyril,  and  accused  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  as  having  too  hastily  condemned  Nestorius.  —  Anastas. 
in  Vita. 


CHAP.  IV.          VIGILIUS  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE.  467 

cepted  on  the  Tiber  by  the  barbarians  ;  the  Bishop 
Valentinus,  who  accompanied  it,  was  summoned  before 
the  savage  conqueror,  and  appearing  to  prevaricate,  was 
mutilated  by  cutting  off  both  his  hands.  It  was  fortu- 
nate on  another  account :  Constantinople  alone  wit- 
nessed the  weakness  and  tergiversations  of  Vigilius, 
who  at  least  three  times  pliantly  yielded  to,  and  then 
desperately  resisted  the  theologic  dictatorship  of  Jus- 
tinian ;  three  times  condemned  the  three  Chapters, 
three  times  recanted  his  condemnation.  Constanti- 
nople alone  witnessed  the  personal  indignities,  the  per- 
secutions of  which  reports,  perhaps  exaggerated,  reached 
the  West,  but  which  were  neither  rendered  glorious  to  a 
servant  of  Christ  by  Christian  blamelessness  (the  sense 
of  which  might  have  allayed  their  bitterness)  or  by 
Christian  meekness  and  resolution,  which  might  have 
turned  them  to  his  honor  and  to  his  peace.  He  had 
the  sufferings,  but  neither  the  outward  dignity  nor  the 
inward  consolation  of  martyrdom. 

It  was  a  perilous  crisis  for  a  Prelate  so  ambitious,  yet 
so  double-minded,  so  trammelled  by  former  obligations, 
and  so  bound  by  common  guilt  to  one  of  the  A.D.  548. 
contending  parties.  For  there  was  division  in  the 
court ;  Justinian  and  Theodora,  as  throughout  in  re- 
ligious interests,  were  on  opposite  sides ;  the  East  and 
the  West  were  irreconcilably  adverse.  Vigilius  was 
emboldened  by  his  honorable  reception  in  Constanti- 
nople ;  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  are  said  to  June  11, 584. 
have  wept,  when  they  first  met.1  The  death  of  Theo- 
dora soon  relieved  Vigilius  from  some  part  of  his  embar- 
rassment. Yet  he  miscalculated  his  power,  and  dared 
to  resist  the  Imperial  will ;  he  refused  to  condemn  the 
1  Anastas.  in  Vit. 


468  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

three  Chapters.  He  even  ventured  to  address  the  Em- 
peror under  the  favorite  appellation,  bestowed  on  all 
imperial  opponents  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  as  a  new 
Diocletian.  He  excluded  from  his  communion  Men- 
nas,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople;  he  excommuni- 
cated Theodoras  of  Cesarea,  and  even  the  departed 
Empress  herself.  Mennas  threw  back  the  anathema, 
and  on  his  side  excommunicated  the  Pope.  Vigilius 
was  ere  long  obliged  to  withdraw  his  censures,  and  to 
reconcile  himself  with  the  rival  Prelate.  Scarcely, 
indeed,  had  many  months  passed  before  the  Pope  at 
the  head  of  a  Council  of  seventy  bishops,  issued  his 
A.».648.  infallible  anathema  against  the  three  Chap- 
ters. The  West  at  once  threw  off  its  allegiance,  and 
refused  to  listen  to  the  ingenious  sophistry  with  which 
Vigilius  attempted  to  reconcile  his  solemn  judgment 
with  his  former  opinions.  Illyricum,  Africa  with  all 
her  old  dauntless  pertinacity,  even  his  own  clergy 
revolted  against  the  renegade  Pope.  He  revoked  his 
imprudent  concessions,  recanted  his  recantation,  and 
prevailed  on  the  Emperor  to  summon  a  Council,  in 
order,  it  should  seem,  either  to  obtain  the  support  of 
the  Council  against  the  Emperor,  or  to  compel  the 
Western  bishops  to  give  up  their  resistance.  The 
Eastern  prelates  assembled  in  great  numbers  at  the 
Council,  the  Western  stood  aloof.  Vigilius  refused  to 
sanction  or  recognize  the  Council  in  the  absence  of  the 
Western  bishops.  Justinian,  indignant  at  the  delay, 
promulgated  a  new  edict,  condemning  the  three  Chap- 
ters in  still  stronger  terms  on  his  own  plenary  au- 
thority. Vigilius  assembled  as  many  bishops  as  he 
could  collect,  solemnly  protested  against  the  usurpation 
of  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  cut  off  from  his  com- 


CHAP.  IV.  FYTT.F.  OF  YIGHIUS.  469 

munion  all  who  received  the  edict.  But  a  Byzantine 
despot  was  not  to  be  thus  trifled  with  or  boldly  bearded 
in  his  own  capital,  and  the  Eastern  bishops  refused  to 
hold  communion  with  the  successor  of  St.  Peter.  Ap- 
prehensive of  violence,  the  Pope  took  refuge  in  a  sanctu- 
ary ;  but  neither  the  Emperor  nor  his  troops  were  dis- 
posed to  reverence  the  sacred  right  of  asylum.  They 
attempted  to  drag  him  forth  by  the  feet,  he  clung  to 
the  altar,  and  being  a  large  and  powerful  man,  the 
pillars  of  the  baldachin  gave  way,  and  the  whole  fell 
crumbling  upon  him.1  The  populace  could  not  behold 
without  compassion  these  personal  outrages,  heaped  on  a 
venerable  ecclesiastic  ;  the  imperial  officers  were  obliged 
to  retire  and  leave  Vigilius  within  the  church.  He 
was  persuaded,  however,  on  certain  terms  to  leave  his 
sanctuary.  Again  he  suffered,  according  to  rumors 
propagated  in  the  West,  still  more  barbarous  usage  ; 
he  was  said  to  have  been  dragged  through  the  city 
with  a  rope  round  his  neck,  and  reproached  with  his 
crimes  and  cruelties,  then  committed  to  a  common 
dungeon,  and  kept  on  the  hardest  prison  diet,  A.D.  552. 
bread  and  water.  A  second  time  escaped  to  his  sanc- 
tuary, and  from  thence  by  night  fled  over  the  sea  to 
Chalcedon.  There  he  took  refuge  in  the  more  awful  and 
inviolable  sanctuary  of  Saint  Euphemia.  The  Emperor 
condescended  to  capitulate  on  honorable  terms  with  the 
Prelate.  He  revoked  his  edict,  and  left  the  three 
Chapters  to  the  decrees  of  the  Council.  Vigilius  had 
promised  to  be  present  at  the  Council ;  but  dared  not 
confront  alone  the  host  of  Eastern  bishops  who  com- 

1  Vigilius  himself  relates  the  former  outrage,  but  does  not  mention  par- 
ticularly the  other  indignities :  but  he  says,  "  Dum  mnlta  mala  intolerabilia 
ssepius  pateremur  quae  jam  omnibus  nota  esse  confidimus."  —  Epist.  En- 
:yd.  apud  Labbe,  p.  330. 


470  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

posed  it.  The  Council,  according  to  the  dominant 
sentiment  of  the  East,  renewed  the  condemnation  of 
the  three  Chapters.  Vigilius  with  difficulty  collected 
A.B.  653.  sixteen  Western  bishops,  issued  a  protest 
against  the  decree,  and  a  Constitution,  solemnly  ac- 
quitting the  three  Chapters  of  heresy.  The  wrath 
of  the  Emperor  was  again  kindled  ; l  Vigilius  was  once 
more  seized  and  sent  in  exile  to  the  dreary  and  solitary 
rock  of  Proconnesus.  There  his  courage  or  his  pa- 
tience failed.  Alarming  reports  reached  him,  that  his 
name  was  to  be  struck  out  of  the  diptychs  ;  that 
orders  were  preparing  for  Rome  to  elect  a  new  bishop. 
He  intimated  that  now,  at  length,  on  more  studious 
examination,  he  had  detected  the  subtle  and  latent 
errors  which  had  so  long  escaped  his  impeccable  judg- 
A.D.  554.  ment,  and  was  prepared  with  a  Constitution, 
condemnatory  of  those  baneful  writings.  He  was  re- 
called to  Constantinople,  obtained  leave,  after  his  full 
June  7, 554.  submission,  to  return  to  Rome,  but  died  in 
Sicily  of  the  stone,  before  he  could  reach  his  see. 

Such  was  the  miserable  fate  of  a  Pope  who  came 
into  direct  collision  with  the  Imperial  despotism  of 
Constantinople.  A  Prelate  of  unimpeachable  charac- 
ter, uncommitted  by  base  subserviency  to  the  court,  and 
who  had  not  owed  his  elevation  to  unworthy  means, 
or  one  of  more  firm  religious  courage,  might  have 
escaped  some  portion  of  the  degradation  and  contempt 
endured  by  Vigilius ;  but  it  is  impossible  not  to  ob- 
serve again  how  much  the  Papal  power  owed  to  the 
position  of  Rome.  Even  its  freedom,  far  more  its 

1  Theodorus  of  Cesarea  was  the  ecclesiastic  who  ruled  the  mind  of  Jus- 
tinian. See  the  imperfect  anathema  and  sentence  of  deposition  against 
nim.  —  Labbe. 


PELAGIUS.  471 

authority,  arose  out  of  its  having  ceased  to  be  the  seat 
of  Imperial  government,  and  the  residence  of  the  Em- 
peror. During  the  conquest  of  Italy  by  the  Eastern 
Emperors,  and  for  some  time  after,  the  Pope  was  not 
confronted  indeed  in  Rome  by  a  resident  Emperor,  but 
summoned  at  the  will  of  the  Emperor  to  Constanti- 
nople, or  in  Rome  rebuked  before  a  victorious  general, 
or  an  Exarch,  who,  though  he  held  his  court  at  Ra- 
venna, executed  the  commands  of  a  sovereign  accus- 
tomed to  dictate,  rather  than  submit  to  ecclesiastical 
power.  At  scarcely  any  period  did  the  papal  authority 
suffer  greater  degradation,  or  were  the  persons  of  the 
Popes  reduced  to  more  humiliating  subserviency.  Nor 
is  this  passive  humiliation,  which,  by  the  patient  dig- 
nity with  which  it  is  endured,  may  elevate  the  char- 
acter of  the  sufferer ;  he  is  mingled  up  in  the  intrigues 
of  the  court,  and  contaminated  with  its  base  venality. 
He  is  hardly  more  independent  or  authoritative  than 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

The  successor  of  Vigilius  was  Pelagius  I.  Pelagius 
had  been  the  legate  or  ambassador  of  Vigilius  A.D.SSG. 
at  the  court  of  Constantinople.  He  had  won  the  favor 
of  Justinian,  and  accumulated  considerable  wealth. 
He  returned  to  Rome,  a  short  time  before  it  was  be- 
sieged by  Totila ;  and  the  wealth,  obtained  it  might 
seem  by  doubtful  means  in  the  East,  was  nobly  dis- 
pensed among  the  poor  and  famishing  inhabitants  of 
the  beleaguered  city.  Pelagius  during  the  popedom 
of  Vigilius  had  been  employed  on  the  most  important 
services.  When  the  Goths  again  contested  the  domin- 
ion of  Italy,  he  had  undertaken  an  embassy  in  the 
name  of  the  Romans  to  avert  the  wrath  of  Totila  ;  he 
had  been  received  with  stately  courtesy,  but  dismissed 


472  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

with  no  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Goth.1  After  the 
capture  of  the  city,  when  the  victorious  Totila  t'lircivd 
the  church  of  St.  Peter  to  perform  his  devotions,  he- 
was  met  again  by  Pelagius,  with  the  Gospel  in  his 
hands.  "  Have  mercy  on  thy  subjects,"  implored  the 
earnest  priest.  "Now,"  tauntingly  replied  Totila, 
"  you  condescend  to  appear  as  a  suppliant."  "  God," 
answered  Pelagius,  "  has  made  us  your  subjects,  be 
merciful  to  us  on  that  account."  His  calm  and  sub- 
missive demeanor  arrested  the  wrath  of  the  con- 
queror. Rome  owed  to  his  intercession  the  lives  of 
her  citizens,  and  the  chastity  of  her  females.  Mas- 
sacre and  violation  were  arrested ;  the  discipline  of  the 
Goths  respected  the  command  of  their  king.  Pelagius 
A.D  M9.  was  sent  by  Totila  as  his  ambassador  to  Con- 
stantinople to  demand  peace,  under  the  menace,  that 
the  Goth,  if  Justinian  persisted  in  his  hostility,  would 
destroy  Rome,  and  put  the  Senate  to  the  sword.2  Pe- 
lagius again  in  Constantinople,  adhered  as  a  faithful 
partisan  to  Vigilius,  with  him  he  resisted  the  theologic 
tyranny  of  Justinian  ;  and,  if  he  did  not  share  his  hard 
usage  and  exile,  was  left  to  neglect  and  misery.  With 
Vigilius,  having  shown  himself  too  pliant  to  the  impe- 
rial doctrines,  he  returned  to  Rome,  and  on  the  death 
of  Vigilius,  by  the  command  of  Justinian,  was  elevated 
to  the  See.8  But  now  in  Rome,  all  his  former  benefac- 
tions to  the  city  were  forgotten  in  his  treacherous 
abandonment  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  West,  and  his 
servile  compliance  with  the  will  of  the  Emperor ;  he 
could  not  assemble  from  all  the  reluctant  order  three 

1  Procop.  de  Bell.  Gothic.,  iii.  16. 

2  Procop.  de  Bell.  Gothic.,  iii.  20. 

8  According  to  Victor  Turon,  he  at  first  defended,  then  recalled  from  ex- 
ile, condemned  the  three  chapters  (ap.  Roncagl.  ii.  377). 


CHAP.  IV.  PELAGIUS.  473 

bishops  for  the  ceremonial  of  his  consecra-  June  7, 656. 
tion ;  it  was  performed  by  two  bishops  and  a  presby- 
ter.1 His  favor  with  Justinian  exposed  him  to  worse, 
doubtless  to  unjust  suspicions.  He  was  accused  of 
having  been  the  instigator  in  Constantinople  of  all  the 
cruelties  suffered  by  Vigilius.  The  monks,  many  of 
the  clergy,  and  of  the  nobility  of  Rome,  withdrew 
from  his  communion.  Even  when  Xarses  reconquered 
Rome,  the  avowed  protection  of  the  Emperor's  victo- 
rious representative  could  not  restore  the  public  con- 
fidence to  Pelagius.  The  Pope,  with  the  general  by 
his  side,  went  in  solemn  procession,  chanting  a  Litany, 
to  the  Church  of  St.  Peter;  and  there  Pelagius  as- 
cended the  chancel,  and  holding  above  his  head  the 
Book  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  Cross,  solemnly  declared 
that  he  had  never  wrought  or  suggested  any  evil  against 
Vigilius.  Pelagius  added,  and  to  this  he  demanded 
the  assent  of  the  people,  a  strong  denunciation  of  all, 
who  from  the  door-keeper  up  to  the  bishop  should  at- 
tempt to  obtain  any  ecclesiastical  office  by  simony.2 
Rome,  after  this  expurgation,  acquiesced  in  the  rule 
of  her  Pontiff.  But  the  Western  bishops  could  not 
forgive  his  adhesion  to  the  fifth  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople, whose  decrees  had  in  some  degree  impeached 
those  of  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Even  in 
Italy  the  bishops  of  Tuscany  would  not  admit  his  name 
into  their  sacramental  liturgy.  Pelagius  bitterly  re- 
proached them  with  thus  yielding  to  vulgar  clamor; 
by  separating  themselves  from  the  communion  of  an 
Apostolic  See  they  had  separated  themselves  from  the 
communion  of  all  Christendom.  But  he  thought  it 
'necessary  to  declare  his  unreserved  acceptance  of  all 
1  Victor  Turon.,  apud  Roncagl.  2  Marcell.  Chronic,  apud  Roncagli. 


474  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

the  four  great  Councils  (maintaining  a  prudent  silence 
as  to  the  fifth),  and  the  Letter  of  his  predecessor  Leo. 
Whoever  should  not  be  content  with  this  declaration, 
might  demand  further  explanation  from  the  Pope 
himself.  Yet  he  condemned  all  that  his  predecessors 
had  condemned,  venerated  as  orthodox  all  that  tlu-y  re- 
ceived, especially  the  saintly  prelates,  Theodoret  and 
Ibas.1  The  Pope  addressed  a  letter  to  the  whole 
Christian  world,  in  which,  after  reasserting  his  allegi- 
ance to  the  four  Councils,  he  attempted  to  justify  the 
fifth  as  in  no  way  impeaching  the  authority  of  Chalce- 
don.  A  new  royal  theologian,  Childebert,  king  of  the 
Franks,  entered  the  field,  and  required  a  more  explicit 
statement.  With  this  the  Pope  condescended  to  com- 
ply ;  he  sent  his  confession  of  faith  to  the  Kinir,  with 
an  admonition  to  the  orthodox  sovereign  to  exercise 
vigilance  over  all  heretics  within  his  dominions.  Still 
some  obstinate  dioceses,  chiefly  of  Venetia  and  Istria, 
refused  communion  with  all  who  adhered  to  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople.  Pelagius  had  recourse  to  the  all- 
powerful  Narses  to  enforce  submission  ;  the  most  re- 
fractory, the  Bishop  of  Aquileia  and  the  Bishop  of 
Milan,  who  had  uncanonically  consecrated  that  prelate, 
were  sent  prisoners  to  Constantinople. 

On  the  death  of  Pelagius,2  Rome  waited  in  obse- 
quious submission  the  permission  of  the  Emperor  to 
July  14, 560.  inaugurate  her  new  Pope,  John  III.  The 
period  between  the  accession  of  John  III.  and  that  of 
Gregory  the  Great  is  among  the  most  barren  and 
obscure  in  the  annals  of  the  papacy.  One  act  of  mis- 
judging authority,  and  one  of  intercession,  are  recorded 
during  the  pontificate  of  John.  He  received,  accord- 

1  Musi.  ix.  17.  *  Pelagius  died  560. 


CHAP.  IV.  THE  EUXUCH  NAKSES.  475 

ing  to  the  permission  of  the  Frankish  King,  Gunthram, 
the  appeal  of  two  bishops,  Salonius  of  Embrun  and 
Sagittarius  of  Gap,1  who  had  been  deposed  for  crimes 
most  unbefitting  their  order  by  a  synod  at  Lyons. 
These  -were  the  first  Christian  bishops  who  had  ap- 
peared in  arms,  the  prototypes  of  the  warlike  and 
robber-prelates  of  later  times.  The  Pope  urged 
their  restoration,  the  King  assented :  but  the  rein- 
stated prelates  returned  to  their  lawless  and  unepis- 
copal  courses,  and  were  again  degraded  by  the  common 
indignation. 

The  act  of  intercession  was  more  worthy  of  the  head 
of  Western  Christendom.  The  Eunuch  Nar-  A.».  552-567. 
ses  had  ruled  Italy  and  Rome  as  Exarch  for  fifteen 
years  since  the  conquest,  with  vigor  and  justice. 
Justinian  and  Theodora  had  gone  to  their  account ; 
the  throne  of  the  East  was  occupied  by  Justin  the 
younger.  But  the  province  groaned  under  the  rapac- 
ity of  Narses.  Petitions  were  sent  to  Constantinople 
with  the  significant  words,  that  the  yoke  of  the  bar- 
barian Gauls  was  lighter  than  this  Roman  tyranny. 
Narses  was  superseded  by  the  Exarch  Longinus,  insult 
was  added  to  his  degradation.  "  Let  him  to  his  dis- 
taff," is  the  speech  ascribed  to  the  imperious  wife  of 
the  Emperor  Justin  the  younger.  "I  will  weave  her 
such  a  web  as  she  will  find  it  hard  to  unravel,"  re- 
joined the  indignant  Eunuch.  He  returned  to  Naples, 
from  whence  he  entered  into  negotiations  with  the 
terrible  Lombards,  who  had  once  already  invaded 
Italy.  Revolt,  with  Narses  at  its  head,  threatened 
the  peace  of  Italy.  The  Pope  undertook  an  embassy 
to  Naples,  appeased  the  wrathful  Eunuch,  who  return- 

1  Ebrodonum.  Vapincum. 


476  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

ed  to  Rome,  and  closed  his  days  as  a  peaceful  subject 
of  the  empire. 

The  few  years  of  the  pontificate  of  Benedict  I.  were 
Benedict  i.  occupied  with  the  miseries  of  the  Lombard 
Junes, 574.  jnvasion.  His  successor  Pelagius  II.  in  those 
disastrous  times  was  consecrated  without  awaiting  the 
sanction  of  the  Emperor.1  Pelagius  in  vain  endeavored 
NOT.  27, 688.  to  reduce  the  bishops  of  the  north  of  Italy 
to  accept  the  fifth  Council  of  Constantinople.  Some 
who  were  now  under  the  Lombard  dominion  paid  no 
regard  to  his  expostulations;  a  synod  at  Grado  re- 
jected his  mandates,  and  the  bishops  defied  the  power 
of  the  Exarch,  through  whom  Pelagius  sought  to  awe 
them  to  submission.  Yet  Pelagius,  in  one  respect, 
maintained  all  the  haughtiness  of  his  See.  The 
A.D.  688.  Bishop  of  Constantinople  had  again  assumed 
the  title  of  CEcumenic  Patriarch,  the  assumption  was 
confirmed  by  a  Council  at  Constantinople.  Pelagius 
protested  against  this  execrable,  sacrilegious,  diabolic 
A.D.  590.  usurpation :  but  in  Constantinople  his  invec- 
tives made  no  impression.  Pelagius  was  succeeded  by 
Gregory  the  Great. 

Since  the  conquest  of  Italy  the  Popes  had  been  the 
humble  subjects  of  the  Eastern  Emperor.  They  were 
appointed,  if  not  directly  by  his  mandate,  under  his 
influence.  They  dared  not  assume  their  throne  with- 
out his  permission.  The  Roman  Ordinal  of  that  time 
declares  the  election  incomplete  and  invalid  till  it  had 
received  the  imperial  sanction.2  Months  elapsed,  in 
the  case  of  Benedict  ten  months,  before  the  clergy 
ventured  to  proceed  to  the  consecration. 

1  Sine  jussione  Principis,  Vit.  Pelag.  II. 
*  Compare  Schroeck,  xvii.  p.  236. 


CHAP.  IT.     OVERTHROW  OF  THE  GOTHIC  KINGDOM.      477 

Pelagius  II.  was  chosen  when  Rome  was  invested 
by  the  Lombards ;  for  this  ignominious  reason  he  had 
been  consecrated  without  the  consent  of  the  Emperor. 

The  conquest  of  Italy  by  the  Greeks  was,  to  a  great 
extent  at  least,  the  work  of  the  Catholic  clergy.  Their 
impatience  under  a  foreign  and  an  Arian  yoke  is  by  no 
means  surprising;  nor  could  they  anticipate  that  the 
return  to  Roman  dominion  would  be  the  worst  evil  yet 
endured  by  Italy.  Rome  suffered  more  under  the  al- 
ternate sieges  and  alternate  capture  by  the  Byzantines 
and  the  Goths  than  it  had  from  A'laric  or  even  Gen- 
seric,  as  much  perhaps  as  in  its  later  sieges  bv  Robert 
Guiscard,  and  by  the  Constable  Bourbon.  The  feeble 
but  tyrannical  Exarchs  soon  made  Italy  regret  the  just, 
if  oppressive  and  ungenial  rule  of  the  Goths.  The 
overthrow  of  the  Gothic  kingdom  was  to  Italy  an  un- 
mitigated evil.  A  monarch  like  Witiges  or  Totila 
would  soon  have  repaired  the  mischiefs  caused  by  the 
degenerate  successors  of  Theodoric,  Athaluric  and 

o  ' 

Theodotus.  In  their  overthrow  began  the  fatal  policy 
of  the  Roman  See,  fatal  at  least  to  Italy  (however,  by 
the  aggrandizement  of  the  Roman  See,  it  may  have 
been,  up  to  a  certain  time,  beneficial  to  northern  Chris- 
tendom), which  never  would  permit  a  powerful  native 
kingdom  to  unite  Italy,  or  a  very  large  part  of  it,  under 
one  dominion.  Whatever  it  may  have  been  to  Chris- 
tendom, the  Papacy  has  been  the  eternal,  implacable 
foe  of  Italian  independence  and  Italian  unity ;  and  so 
(as  far  as  independence  and  unity  might  have  given 
dignity,  political  weight,  and  prosperity)  to  the  welfare 
of  Italy.  On  every  occasion  the  Goths,  the  Lom- 
bards, as  later  the  Normans  and  the  House  of  Arra- 
gon,  found  their  deadliest  enemies  in  the  popes.  As 


478  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

now  from  the  East,  so  then  from  beyond  the  Alps, 
they  summoned  some  more  remote  potentate,  Charle- 
magne, the  Othos,  Charles  VIII.,  Charles  of  Anjou, 
almost  always  worse  tyrants  than  those  whom  they 
overthrew.  From  that  time  servitude,  servitude  to  the 
stranger,  was  the  doom  of  Italy.  To  Rome  herself, 
the  foreign  sovereign  (the  tyranny  of  the  Eastern  Em- 
peror and  his  Exarchs  was  an  admonition  of  what  the 
transalpine  emperors  might  hereafter  prove)  was  hardly 
less  dangerous  than  a  native  and  indigenous  sovereign 
would  have  been.  And  if  the  papacy  had  been  more 
confined  to  its  religious  power,  less  tempted  or  less  com- 
pelled to  assume  temporal  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  su- 
premacy, that  power  had  been  immeasurably  greater, 
as  less  involved  in  political  strife,  less  exposed  to  that 
kind  of  personal  collision  with  the  temporal  monarchy, 
in  which  a  sovereignty  which  rests  on  the  awe  and  rev- 
erence of  men  must  suffer ;  it  might  have  maintained 
its  ecclesiastical  supremacy  over  obedient  and  tributary 
Christendom,  even  held  as  vast  possessions  on  the  ten- 
ure not  of  a  temporal  princedom,  but  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal endowment ;  and  thus  more  entirely  ruled  the 
minds  of  men  by  confining  its  authority  to  that  nobler 
and,  for  a  time  at  least,  more  unassailable  province. 

Rome,  jealous  of  all  temporal  sovereignty  but  her 
own,  for  centuries  yielded  up,  or  rather  made  Italy  a 
battle  field  to  the  Transalpine  and  the  stranger  ;  and  at 
the  same  time  so  secularized  her  own  spiritual  suprem- 
acy as  to  confound  altogether  the  priest  and  the  poli- 
tician, to  degrade  absolutely  and  almost  irrevocably  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  into  a  kingdom  of  this  world. 


CHAP.  V.         FIRST  EFFECTS   OF  CHRISTIANITY.  479 


CHAPTER  V. 

CHRISTIAN  JURISPRUDENCE.! 

CHRISTIANITY  had  been  now  for  more  than  two  cen- 
turies the  established  religion  of  the  Roman  Empire  ; 
it  was  the  religion  of  all  those  independent  kingdoms 
which  were  forming  themselves  within  the  dissevered 
provinces  of  Rome.  Between  the  religion  and  the 
laws  of  all  nations  must  subsist  an  intimate  and  indis- 
soluble connection.  During  all  that  period  the  vast  and 
august  jurisprudence  of  Rome  had  been  constantly  en- 
larged by  new  imperial  edicts  or  authoritative  decrees, 
supplementary  to,  or  corrective  and  interpretative  of, 
the  ancient  statutes. 

I.  The  jurisprudence  of  the  old  Roman  Empire  at 
first  admitted,  but  only  in  a  limited  degree,  this  modi- 
fying power  of  Christianity.  The  laws  which  were 
purely  Christian  were  hardly  more  than  accessory  and 
supplementary  to  the  vast  code  which  had  accumulated 
from  the  days  of  the  republic,  through  the  great  law- 
yers of  the  empire,  down  to  Theodosius  and  Justinian. 
But  the  complete  moral,  social,  and  in  some  sense  polit- 
ical revolution,  through  Christianity,  could  not  be  with- 

1  Let  me  not  be  suspected  of  the  vain  ambition  of  emulating  Gibbon'a 
splendid  chapter  on  Roman  Law,  which  has  become  the  text-book  in  uni- 
versities (see  my  edition  of  Gibbon).  My  object  is  more  narrow  and 
limited;  and  appeared  necessary  to  the  history  even  of  Latin  Christianity; 
to  show  the  interworking  of  Christianity  into  the  Roman  jurisprudence. 


480  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

out  influence,  both  as  creating  a  necessity  for  new  laws 
adapted  to  the  present  order  of  things,  or  as  control- 
ling, through  the  mind  of  the  legislator,  the  general 
temper  and  spirit  of  the  legislation.  A  Christian  Em- 
First  effects  peror  could  not  exclude  this  influence  from 
ity.  his  mind,  either  as  affecting  his  moral  appre- 

ciation of  certain  obligations  and  transgressions,  or  as 
ascertaining  and  defining  the  social  position,  the  rights 
and  duties,  of  new  classes  and  divisions  of  his  subjects. 
Under  Christianity  a  new  order  of  men  of  a  peculiar 
character,  with  special  privileges,  immunities,  and 
functions,  had  grown  up  throughout  the  whole  society ; 
new  corporate  bodies,  the  churches  and  the  monaster- 
ies, had  been  formed,  holding  property  of  every  kind 
by  a  new  tenure  ;  certain  offences  in  the  penal  code 
were  now  looked  on  with  a  milder  or  more  severe 
aspect;  a  more  strict  morality  had  attempted  to  knit 
more  closely  some  of  the  relations  of  life ;  vices  which 
had  been  tolerated  became  crimes  against  social  order ; 
and  an  offence,  absolutely  new  in  the  extent  of  odious- 
ness  in  which  it  was  held,  and  the  rigor  with  which  it 
was  punished,  Heresy,  or  dissent  from  the  dominant 
religion,  in  all  its  various  forms,  had  been  introduced 
into  the  criminal  jurisdiction,  not  of  the  Church  only, 
but  of  the  Empire.  The  imperial  legislation  could  not 
refuse,  it  was  not  inclined  to  refuse,  to  take  cognizance 
of  this  novel  order  of  things,  and  to  adapt  itself  to  the 
necessities  of  the  age. 

II.  The  Barbaric  Codes,  which  embodied  in  written 
Barbaric        statutes  the  unwritten,  immemorial,  and  tra- 
ditionary laws  and  usages  of   the  Teutonic 
tribes  (the  common  law  of  the  German  forests),  assum- 
ing their  positive  form  after  the  different  races  had  sub- 


CHAP.  V.  CHRISTIAN  JURISPRUDENCE.  481 

mitted  to  Christianity,  were  more  completely  interpen- 
etrated, as  it  were,  with  Christian  influences.  The 
unlettered  barbarians  willingly  accepted  the  aid  of  the 
lettered  clergy,  still  chiefly  of  Roman  birth,  to  reduce 
to  writing  the  institutes  of  their  forefathers.  Though 
these  codes  therefore,  in  their  general  character  and 
main  principles,  are  essentially  Teutonic  —  in  their 
broad  principles  are  deduced  from  the  free  usages  of 
the  old  German  tribes  —  yet  throughout  they  are  mod- 
ified by  Christian  notions,  and  admit  a  singular  infu- 
sion, not  merely  of  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  of  the  positive  laws  of  the  Old. 

But  III.  Christianity  had  its  own  peculiar  and 
special  jurisprudence.  The  Christian  com-  Christian  ju- 
munity,  or  rather  the  separate  communities,  nsPrudence 
had  originally  exercised  this  power  of  internal  legisla- 
tion. They  held  each  its  separate  tribunal,  which  ad- 
judicated not  only  on  religious  matters,  but,  as  an 
acknowledged  wise  and  venerated  arbitrator,  in  civil 
litigation.  This  legislation  and  administration  of  law 
had  gradually  become  vested  in  the  clergy  alone ;  and, 
instead  of  each  community  ruling  its  own  internal  con- 
cerns, and  presiding  over  its  own  separate  members, 
the  Church,  as  chiefly  represented  by  the  bishops, 
either  in  local  or  national  synods,  or  in  general  coun- 
cils, enacted  statutes  or  canons,  considered  binding  on 
the  whole  Christian  world.  The  sanctions  of  this 
Christian  jurisprudence  were  properly  altogether  relig- 
ious :  they  rested  on  opinion,  on  the  voluntary  submis- 
sion of  each  individual  mind  to  spiritual  authority. 
Their  punishments  and  rewards  were  properly  those  of 
the  life  to  come.  The  only  punishments  in  this  world 
were  those  of  the  penitential  discipline,  or  excommuni- 

VOL.    I.  31 


482  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI 

cation  from  the  Christian  society,  which  was  tanta- 
mount, with  all  who  believed  salvation  to  be  the  exclu- 
sive privilege  of  the  Church,  to  a  sentence  of  eternal 
damnation.  Those  who  braved  that  disfranchisement 
—  who  either,  as  the  Jews,  never  had  entered  within 
the  community,  or  as  holding  heretical  opinions  had 
renounced  it  —  were  rightfully  beyond  its  jurisdiction. 
The  legislators  and  administrators  of  the  laws  had  lost 
all  cognizance  over  those  upon  whose  faith  or  whose 
fears  they  had  no  hold.  These  were  outlaws,  who,  as 
they  blindly  or  obstinately  disclaimed  the  inestimable 
privileges  of  the  Church,  could  not  be  amenable  at 
least  to  its  temporal  penalties.  Unhappily  the  civil  and 
canon,  the  Imperial  and  Christian,  legislation  would 
not  maintain  their  respective  boundaries.  This  arose 
partly  from  the  established  constitutional  doctrine  of 
Rome,  that  the  Republic  (now  the  Emperor)  was  the 
religious  as  well  as  the  civil  head  of  the  Empire  ; 
partly  from  the  blindness  of  Christian  zeal,  which 
thought  all  means  lawful  to  advance  the  true,  or  to  sup- 
press erroneous,  belief;  and  therefore  fell  into  the  irrec- 
oncilable contradiction  of  inflicting  temporal  penalties 
by  temporal  hands  for  spiritual  offences.  Athanasius 
8nprem»cj  hailed  and  applauded  the  full  civil  supremacy 
of  the  state  when  it  commanded  the  exile  of 


Arius  ;  contested,  resisted,  branded  it  as  usurping  tyr- 
anny, when  it  would  exact  obedience  from  himself. 
Thus,  though  the  Councils  were  the  proper  legislative 
senates  of  Christianity,  so  long  as  the  Empire  lasted  in 
the  West,  even  later;  and  in  the  East  down  to  the 
latest  times  ;  the  Emperors  enacted  and  enforced  the 
observation  of  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  of  the  civil 
law.  Theodosius  and  Gratian  define  or  ratify  the  defi- 


CHAP.  V.  CODE  OF  JUSTINIAN.  483 

nition  of  doctrines,  declare  and  condemn  heietics.  Jus- 
tinian is  a  kind  of  Caliph  of  Christianity,  at  once  in 
the  authoritative  tone  and  in  the  subjects  which  he 
Comprehends  under  his  decrees  he  is  a  Pope  and  an 
Emperor.  In  the  barbaric  codes  there  is  the  same  ab- 
solute supremacy  of  the  sovereign  law  —  in  theory  the 
same,  but  restricted  by  the  more  limited  royal  power, 
and  the  peculiar  relation  of  the  clergy  to  tribes  newly 
converted  to  Christianity.  Where  there  is  a  strong 
monarchy,  it  assumes  a  dominion  scarcely  less  full  and 
complete  than  under  the  Christian  Emperors.  Charle- 
magne, in  his  imperial  edicts,  is  at  once  the  legislator 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  State. 

Thus  then  in  Christendom  there  are  three  systems  of 
jurisprudence,  the  Roman  Law,  the  Barbaric  Three  8yg_ 
or  Teutonic  Law,  the  Law  of  the  Church— tem30fu"r 
this  hist,  as  yet  but  young,  humble  and  limited  in  its 
pretensions,  a  discipline  rather  than  a  law,  or  confined, 
in  a  great  degree,  to  the  special  observance  of  the  cler- 
gy- 

I.  The  Emperor  Justinian,  having  now  reunited  the 

Eastern  and  Western  Empires,  aspired  to  be  Ju<,tiniaa 
the  legislator  of  the  world ;  on  Christendom  code' 
and  on  the  Roman  Empire,  according  to  his  notions  com- 
mensurate, he  would  bestow  a  full,  complete,  indefeasible 
Code  of  Law.  Of  the  barbaric  codes,  if  even  in  their 
initiatory  growth  or  existence,  the  Roman  law,  which 
still  held  the  whole  Roman  world  to  be  its  proper 
dominion,  would  be  as  disdainfully  ignorant,  as  if  they 
were  yet  the  usages  of  wild  tribes  beyond  the  Rhine 
or  the  Danube.  Even  over  the  Church  or  Canoni- 
cal Jurisprudence  it  would  assert,  as  will  immedi- 
ately appear,  majestic  superiority ;  it  would  admit,  con- 


484  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

firm,  sanction  such  parts  as  might  demand  the  supivme 
imperial  intervention,  or  require  imperial  authority. 

Justinian  aspired  to  consolidate  in  his  eternal  le^i-la- 
Neeessity for  tion  all  the  ancient  and  modern  statu: 

consolidation      ,  ,  „.  ,,  ,  . 

of  i»w*.  the  realm.  1  he  necessity  tor  a  complete  and 
final  revisal  —  an  authoritative  reconstruction  and  har- 
mony of  the  vast  mass  of  republican,  senatorial,  impe- 
rial decrees,  or  those  accredited  interpretations  of  the 
law  which  had  become  law,  and  were  admitted  in  the 
courts  of  justice  —  had  long  been  acknowledged.  The 
Roman  jurisprudence  must  become  a  Code ;  the  decis- 
ions of  the  great  lawyers  must  be  selected,  distributed 
mder  proper  heads,  and  rules  be  laid  down  for  the 
superiority  of  some  over  othei's.  This  jurisprudence 
comprehended  unwritten  as  well  as  written  law.  The 
unwritten  were  the  ancient  Roman  traditions,  and  the 
principles  of  eternal  justice.  The  sources  of  the  writ- 
ten law  were  the  XII  Tables,  the  Laws  of  the  Repub- 
lic, whether  Senatus-Consults  or  Plebiscites,  the  de- 
crees of  the  Emperors,  the  edicts  of  the  Praetors,  and 
the  answers  of  the  learned  in  the  law.1  Already  at- 
tempts had  been  made  to  systematize  this  vast,  multifa- 
rious, and  comprehensive  jurisprudence  in  the  Grego- 
rian, Hermogenian,  and  finally  the  Theodosian  codes. 
But  the  enormous  mass  of  laws  which  had  still  accu- 
mulated, the  conflicting  decisions  of  the  lawyers,  the 
oppugnance  of  the  laws  themselves,  seemed  to  demand 
this  ultimate  organization  of  the  whole ;  and  in  Tri- 
bonian  and  his  Byzantine  lawyers,  Justinian  supposed 
that  he  possessed  the  wisdom,  in  himself  the  power 
and  authority,  to  establish  forever  the  jurisprudence 
of  Rome. 

1  Responsa  prudentum. 


CHAP.  V.  CODE  OF  JUSTINIAN.  485 

But  the  change  which  has  come  over  the  Roman 
Empire  is  manifest  at  once.     That  Justinian  Justinian  a 

•          /-i  i     •   ,  •         -n  -in  n  Christian 

is  a  Christian  Emperor  appears  in  the  front  of  emperor, 
his  jurisprudence.  Before  the  august  temple  of  the 
Roman  law,  there  is,  as  it  were,  a  vestibule,  in  which 
the  Emperor  seats  himself  as  the  religious  legislator  of 
the  world  in  its  new  relation  towards  God.  The  Chris- 
tian Emperor  treats  all  mankind  as  his  subjects,  in  their 
religious  as  well  as  in  their  civil  capacity.  The  Emper- 
or's creed,  as  well  as  his  edicts,  is  the  universal  law  of  the 
Empire.  That  which  was  accessory  in  the  code  of  the 
former  Christian  Emperors,  and  in  the  Theodosian  code 
fills  two  supplementary  books,  stands  in  the  front,  and 
forms  the  Preface  to  that  of  Justinian.  His  code  opens 
with  the  Imperial  Creed  on  the  Trinity,  and  the  Impe- 
rial Anathema  against  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  Apollina- 
ris.  Justinian  declares  indeed  that  he  holds  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  of  the  Apostles  and  their  succes- 
sors. He  recognizes  the  authority  of  the  four  great 
Councils.  He  even  acknowledges  the  supremacy  of 
the  Roman  Church,  and  commands  all  Churches  to  be 
united  with  her.  At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the 
code,  John  III.  was  Bishop  of  Rome ;  but  he  had  been 
appointed  under  the  Exarch,  his  inauguration  had  sub- 
missively awaited  the  Emperor's  approbation.  Rome 
therefore,  it  was  hoped,  had  become,  notwithstanding 
the  rapid  advance  of  the  Lombards,  an  integral,  an  in- 
separable part  of  the  Empire.  Justinian  legislates 
therefore  for  Rome  as  for  the  East.  But  though  the 
Emperor  condescends  thus  to  justify  the  orthodoxy  of 
his  creed,  it  is  altogether  of  his  absolute,  uncontrolled, 
undisputed  will  that  it  is  law.  It  might  seem  indeed 
that  the  clergy  were  the  subjects,  as  first  in  rank, 


486  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

whose  offices,  even  whose  lives,  must  first  be  regulated 
by  imperial  legislation. 

In  the  following  chapters  the  appointment,  the  organi- 
zation, the  subordination,  the  authority  of  the  ecclesias- 
Laws  for  the  tical,  as  of  the  civil  magistrates  of  the  realm, 
ciergy.  jg  ^g^ned  to  emanate  from,  to  be  granted, 
limited,  prescribed  by,  the  supreme  Emperor.  Excom- 
munication is  uttered  indeed  by  the  ecclesiastics,  but 
according  to  the  imperial  laws  and  with  the  imperial 
warrant.  He  deigns  indeed  to  allow  the  canons  of  the 
Church  to  be  of  not  less  equal  authority  than  his  laws  ; 
but  his  laws  are  divine,  and  those  divine  laws  all  met- 
ropolitans, bishops,  and  clergy  are  bound  to  obey,  and, 
if  commanded,  to  publish.1  The  hierarchy  is  regulated 
by  his  ordinance.  He  enacts  the  superiority  of  the 
Metropolitan  over  the  bishop,  of  the  bishop  over  the 
abbot,  of  the  abbot  over  the  monk.  Distinct  imperial 
laws  rule  the  monasteries.  The  law  prescribes  the  or- 
dinations of  bishops,  the  persons  qualified  for  ordina- 
tion,2 the  whole  form  and  process  of  that  holy  ceremo- 
ny. The  law  admitted  no  immunities  in  the  Clergy  for 
crimes  committed  against  the  state  and  against  society. 
It  took  upon  itself  the  severe  superintendence  of  cler- 
ical morals.  The  passion  for  theatrical  amusements, 
for  the  wild  excitement  of  the  horse-race  and  the  com- 
bat with  wild  beasts,  or  even  more  licentious  entertain- 
ments, had  carried  away  many  of  the  clergy,  even  of 
the  bishops.  A  law,  more  than  once  reenacted  and 
modified,  while  it  acknowledged  the  power  of  the  cler- 


1  Toi)f  <fe  fatavf  Kavovof  OVK  £%arrov  ruv  vopuv  ioxyeiv  xal  ol  ii/ 
3ovA0vTflri  voftoi.  —  Cod.  ii.  3,  44.  They  are  to  publish  rdv  tietov 
TOVTOV  vofiov.  —  Cod.  ii.  3,  43. 

*  Especially  Nov.  cxxiii.  ;  it  assesses  the  fees  to  be  paid  on  each  promo- 
tion. 


CHAP.  V.  LAWS  FOR  THE  CLERGY.  487 

gy's  prayers  to  obtain  victory  over  the  barbarians,  and 
to  obtain  from  Heaven  extended  empire,  declared  that 
for  this  reason  they  should  be  unimpeachable.  But, 
notwithstanding  the  most  solemn  admonition,  they 
could  not  be  persuaded,  not  even  the  bishops,  to  ab- 
stain from  the  gaming-table,  or  the  theatre  with  all  its 
blasphemies  and  license.  The  Emperor  was  compelled 
to  pass  this  law,  prohibiting,  under  pain  of  suspension 
for  the  first  offence,  of  irrevocable  degradation  and  ser- 
vitude 1  to  the  public  corporations,  any  one  of  the  cler- 
gy, of  any  rank,  from  being  present  at  the  gaming-table 
or  at  any  public  spectacle.  These  penalties,  with  other 
religious  punishments,  as  fastings,  were  to  be  inflicted, 
according  to  the  rank  of  the  offender,  by  the  bishop  or 
the  metropolitan.  The  refusal  to  punish,  or  the  en- 
deavor to  conceal,  such  offences  made  both  the  civil  of- 
ficers and  ecclesiastics  liable  to  civil  as  well  as  to  eccle- 
siastical penalties. 

The  Bishop  was  an  imperial  officer  for  certain  tem- 
poral affairs.  In  each  city  he  was  appointed,  with 
three  of  the  chief  citizens,  annually  to  inspect  the  pub- 
lic accounts,  and  all  possessions  or  bequests  made  for 
public  works,  markets,  aqueducts,  baths,  walls  and 
gates,  and  bridges.  Before  him  guardians  of  lunatics 
swore  on  the  Gospels  to  administer  their  trust  with 
fidelity,2  and  many  legal  acts  might  be  performed 
either  in  the  presence  of  the  Defensor  or  the  bishop 
of  the  city.3  For  the  discharge  of  these  temporal 
functions  the  bishops  were  reasonably  answerable  to 
the  Emperor  ;  and  thus  the  empire  acknowledged  at 


>.  —  Cod.  i.  14,  34. 
2  Cod.  i.  4,  27. 
8  De  Episcop.  Audient. 


488  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  in. 

the  inspiration  of  Christianity  a  new  order  of  magis- 
tracy. 

The  law  limited  the  number  of  clergy  to  be  attached 
to  each  Church.  This  constitution  was  demanded  in 
order  to  check  that  multiplication  of  the  clergy  which 
exhausted  the  revenues  of  the  Church,  and  led  to  bur- 
densome debts.  In  the  great  Church  at  Constanti- 
nople the  numbers  were  to  be  reduced  to  425,  besides 
100  ostiarii.1  The  smaller  churches  were  on  no  ac- 
count to  have  more  than  they  could  maintain. 

The  State  issued  laws  for  the  regulation  of  monas- 
teries. None  were  to  be  established  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Bishop.  The  Bishop  elected  the  superior 
from  the  community.  Slaves  might  be  admitted  as 
well  as  freemen.  A  probation  of  three  years  was 
required  from  all.  A  slave,  if  a  runaway  or  thief, 
might  be  claimed  by  his  master  during  those  three 

tf 

years.  When  a  monk,  he  could  no  longer  be  claimed, 
unless  he  abandoned  the  monastic  life.  All  were  to 
live  in  common,  to  sleep  in  one  chamber.  If  a  monk 
wished  to  leave  his  monastery  he  went  forth  a  beggar ; 
the  monastery  retained  all  his  property.  If  he  entered 
into  the  army,  it  could  only  be  into  the  lowest  rank. 
No  monk  could  leave  one  monastery  for  another.2 

1  60  presbyters,  100  male  40  female  deacons,  90  subdeacons,  110  readers, 
25  singers.  —  Novell,  iii.    There  is  a  curious  law  concerning  interments  in 
Constantinople.    1000  shops,  or  their  rent,  seem  to  have  been  bestowed  on 
the  church  for  the  burial  of  the  poor;  they  had  a  bier  and  the  attendance 
of  the  clergy  without  charge.    The  rich  paid  according  to  their  means  and 
will ;  there  was  a  fixed  payment  for  certain  more  splendid  biers  and  more 
solemn  attendance.  —  Novell,  xciii. 

2  The  Institutes  acknowledge  the  Bishop,  with  the  Defensor,  to  have  cer- 
tain powers  of  appointing  guardians. — i.  20,  5.    Justinian  speaks  of  the 
modesty  of  his  times.  —  i.  22, 1.   Two  clauses  (2,  i.  8,  9)  relate  to  churc-hes, 
&c.,  iii.  28,  7.    Churches  named.  —  iv.  18,  8.    Rape  of  nuns  made  a  capi- 
tal crime. 


CHAP.  V.  NATURE  OF  BOMAN  LAW.  489 

Such  were  the  all-comprehending  ecclesiastical  laws 
which  the  Emperor  claimed  the  power  to  enact.  In 
many  cases  he  commanded  or  limited  the  anathema  or 
the  interdict.  The  obedient  world,  including  the 
Church,  acknowledged,  at  least  by  submissive  obedi- 
ence, this  imperial  supremacy. 

It  is  not  till  Justinian  has  thus,  as  it  were,  fulfilled 
his  divine  mission  of  legislating  for  his  subjects  as 
Christians,  that  he  assumes  his  proper  function,  his  leg- 
islation for  them  as  Romans,  and  proceeds  to  his  earthly 
task,  the  consolidation  of  the  ancient  and  modern  stat- 
utes of  the  Empire. 

But  the  legislation  of  Justinian,  as  far  as  it  was  orig- 
inal, in  his  Code,  his  Pandects,  and  in  his  Institu- 
tions, within  its  civil  domain,  was  still  almost  Koman  law 
exclusively  Roman.  It  might  seem  that  Koman. 
Christianity  could  hardly  penetrate  into  the  solid  and 
well-compacted  body  of  Roman  law  ;  or  rather,  the 
immutable  principles  of  justice  had  been  so  clearly  dis- 
cerned by  the  inflexible  rectitude  of  the  Roman  mind, 
so  sagaciously  applied  by  the  wisdom  of  her  great  law- 
yers, that  Christianity  was  content  to  acquiesce  in  those 
statutes,  which  even  she  might,  excepting  in  some  re- 
spects, despair  of  rendering  more  equitable.  Chris- 
tianity, in  the  Roman  Empire,  had  entered  into  a  tem- 
poral polity,  with  all  its  institutions  long  settled,  its 
laws  already  framed.  The  Christians  had  in  their 
primitive  state  no  natural  place  in  the  order  of  things. 
That  separate  authority  which  the  Church  exercised 
over  the  members  of  its  own  community  from  its  ori- 
gin, and  without  which  the  loosest  form  of  society  can- 
not subsist,  was  in  no  way  recognized  by  the  civil 
power ;  they  were  the  voluntary  laws  of  a  voluntary 


490  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HL 

association.  But,  besides  these  special  law-,  of  their 
own,  the  Christians  were  in  every  respect  subjects  of 
the  Empire.  They  were  strangers  in  religion  alone. 
After  the  comprehensive  decree  of  Caracalla,  they,  like 
the  rest  of  mankind  within  the  pale  of  the  Empire, 
became  Roman  citizens  ;  and  the  supremacy  of  the 
State  in  all  things  which  did  not  concern  the  vital  prin- 
ciples of  their  religion  (for  which  they  were  still  bound, 
if  the  civil  power  should  exercise  compulsion,  to  suffer 
martyrdom)  was  acknowledged,  both  in  the  West  and 
in  the  East,  both  before  and  after  the  conversion  of 
Constantine. 

The  influence  therefore  of  Christianity  on  the  older 
laws  of  the  Roman  Empire  could  only  be  exercised 
through  the  mind  of  the  legislator,  now  become  Chris- 
tian ;  and  the  general  moral  sentiment,  which  became 
more  pure  or  elevated,  might  modify,  and  gradually 
mitigate,  some  provisions,  or  more  rigidly  enforce  cer- 
tain obligations.  The  Roman  law,  in  its  original  code, 
might  seem  indeed  to  take  a  pride  in  resting  upon  its 
antiquity  and  its  purely  Roman  character ;  it  admits 
not  the  language,  it  appears  even  to  affect  a  supercil- 
ious ignorance  of  the  religion,  of  the  people.1  In  the 
Institutes  of  Justinian2  it  requires  keen  observation  to 
detect  the  Christianity  of  the  legislator.  Tribonian, 
the  great  lawyer,  to  whom  the  vast  work  of  framing 
the  whole  jurisprudence  was  committed  by  the  Em- 


1  TLere  are  several  quotations  from  Homer,  not  one  allusion  to  any  of 
the  sacred  writings  of  Christianity. 

2  The  Institutes  are  without  those  prefatory  chapters  of  Christian  legisla- 
tion contained  in  the  Code.     From  those  chapters  we  pass  into  the  Roman 
Code,  as  into  another  land;  and  it  demands  our  closest  attention  t>- 

now  far,  now  that  he  has  abandoned  all  the  language  of  Christianity,  the 
ipirit  of  the  religion  follows  the  emperor  into  the  ancient  realm. 


CHAP.  V.  LAW  OF  PERSONS.  491 

peror,  has  incurred  the  suspicion  of  atheism,  an  accusa- 
tion which,  just  or  not,  is  strong  evidence  that  his  work 
had  refused  to  incorporate  any  of  the  statutes,  and  bore 
no  signs  of  Christianity.  The  prefatory  Christian  laws, 
though  now  become  fundamental,  are  altogether  extra- 
neous to  the  old  reenacted  system.  They  are  recorded 
laws  before  Tribonian  assumes  his  functions. 

The  Roman  Law  may  be  most  conveniently  consid- 
ered, in  connection  with  the  influence  of  Christianity, 
as  it  regards  A.  Persons :  B.  Property ;  and  C. 
Crime.1 

A.  The  law  as  regards  Persons  comprehends  the 
ranks  and  divisions,  and  the  relations  of  mankind  to 
each  other,  sanctioned  or  recognized  by  the  La 
law,  with  the  privileges,  rights,  and  immuni-  80n 
ties  it  may  grant,  the  duties  it  may  impose  on  each. 
In  nothing  is  the  stern  and  Roman  character  of  the 
Justinian  Code  more  manifest  than  in  its  full  r^^^ 
recognition  of  slavery.  Throughout,  the  broad  and  8laTes' 
distinction  of  mankind  into  freemen  and  slaves  is  the 
unquestioned,  admitted  groundwork  of  legislation.  It 
declares  indeed  the  natural  equality  of  man,  and  so  far 
is  in  advance  of  the  doctrine  which  prevailed  in  the 
time  of  Aristotle,  and  is  vindicated  by  that  philosopher, 
that  certain  races  or  classes  of  men  are  pronounced  by 
the  unanswerable  voice  of  nature,  by  their  physical  and 
intellectual  inferiority,  as  designed  for  and  irrevocably 
doomed  to  servitude.  But  this  natural  equality  is  ab- 
solutely and  entirely  forfeited  by  certain  acknowledged 
disqualifications  for  freedom,  by  captivity  in  war,  self 

1  This  in  some  degree  differs  from  the  division  adopted  by  many  writers 
from  the  Institutes  of  Justinian,  nnder  which  the  criminal  law  ranks  as  a 
•jranch  of  the  law  of  actions  or  obligations. 


492  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH. 

rendition  into  slavery,  or  servile  descent.  Christianity 
had  indeed  exalted  the  slave  to  spiritual  equality,  as 
having  the  same  title  to  the  blessings,  consolations,  and 
promises  of  the  Gospel,  as  capable  of  practising  all 
Christian  virtues,  and  therefore  of  obtaining  the  Chris- 
tian's reward.  This  religious  elevation  could  not  be 
without  influence,  besides  the  more  generous  humanity 
to  which  it  would  soften  the  master,  on  their  temporal 
and  social  position.  It  took  them  out  of  the  class  of 
brute  beasts  or  inanimate  things,  to  be  transferred  like 
cattle  or  other  goods  from  one  master  to  another,  which 
the  owner  might  damage  or  destroy  with  as  much  im- 
punity as  any  other  property  ;  and  placed  them  in  that 
of  human  beings,  equally  under  the  care  of  Divine 
Providence,  and  gifted  with  the  same  immortality. 
But  the  legislation  of  the  Christian  Emperor  went  no 
further.  It  makes  no  claim  to  higher  humanity ;  it 
does  not  attempt  to  despoil  the  pagan  Emperors  of  the 
praise  due  to  the  first  step  made  in  that  direction.  It 
ascribes  to  the  heathen  sovereign,  Antoninus,  the  great 
change  which  had  placed  the  life  of  the  slave  under  the 
protection  of  the  law.  Even  his  punishment  was  then 
restricted  by  legislative  enactment.1  But  the  abroga- 
tion of  slavery  was  not  contemplated  even  as  a  remote 
possibility.  A  general  enfranchisement  seems  never  to 
have  dawned  on  the  wisest  and  best  of  the  Christian 
writers,  notwithstanding  the  greater  facility  for  manu- 
mission, and  the  sanctity,  as  it  were,  assigned  to  the  act 
by  Constantine,  by  placing  it  under  the  special  superin- 
tendence of  the  clergy. 

The  law  of  Justinian  gave  indeed,  or  recognized,  a 

1  Caius,  i.  53 ;  Just.  Instit  i.  viii.  2.    Constantine,  in  312,  had  enlarged 
this  law.  —  C.  Theod.  de  emend,  serv.,  1.  9, 1. 


CHAP.  V.  LAW  OF  SLAVERY.  493 

greater  value  in  the  life  of  the  slave.  The  ^  of 
edict  of  Antoninus  had  declared  the  master  Slaver^ 
who  killed  his  own  slave  without  cause,  liable  to  the 
same  penalty  as  if  he  killed  the  slave  of  another.1 
The  Code  of  Justinian  ratified  the  law  of  Constantino, 
which  made  it  homicide  to  kill  a  slave  with  malice 
aforethought ;  and  it  describes  certain  modes  of  barbar- 
ous punishment,  by  which,  if  death  follows,  that  guilt 
is  incurred.2  The  Code  confirms  the  law  of  Claudius 
against  the  abandonment  of  sick  and  useless  slaves ;  it 
enjoins  the  master  to  send  them  to  the  public  hospitals. 
These  hospitals  were  open  to  slaves  as  well  as  to  poor 
freemen.  "  In  these  times,  and  under  our  empire," 
writes  Justinian,  "  no  one  must  be  permitted  to  exer- 
cise unlawful  cruelty  against  a  slave."  The  motive, 
however,  for  this  was  not  evangelic  humanity,  but  the 
public  good,  which  was  infringed  if  any  man  ill-used 
his  property.3 

But  while  it  protected  the  life,  to  a  certain  extent 
the  person,  of  the  slave,  it  asserted  as  sternly  as  ever 
his  inferior  condition.  He  was  the  property  of  his 
master.  Whoever  became  a  slave  lost  all  power  over 
his  children.4  His  testimony  could  be  received  against 
his  master  only  in  cases  of  high  treason.  His  union 
with  his  wife  was  still  only  concubinage,  not  mar- 
riage.5 The  slave  had  no  remedy  for  adultery  before 
the  tribunals ;  it  was  left  to  the  master  to  punish  the 
offence.  A  free  woman  who  had  unlawful  connection 

1  Caius,  i.  53. 

2  Cod.  Just.  ix.  14. 

8  "  Expedit  enim  reipublicae,  ne  quis  re  tud  utatur  male.'1  —  Instit.  i. 
viii. 

*  Instit.  i.  16,  and  ii.  9,  3.     Cod.  ix.  1,  20. 
6  Contubernium,  not  connubium. 


494  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

with  her  slave,  according  to  the  law  of  Constantine, 
not,  as  it  seems,  repealed  by  Justinian,  was  to  be  put 
to  death,  the  slave  to  be  burned  alive.  But  the  law 
of  Constantine,  confirmed  in  the  West  by  Anthemius, 
which  prohibited  the  union  of  a  freeman  and  a  slave, 
at  least  a  freeman  of  a  certain  rank,  under  the  penalty 
of  exile  and  confiscation  of  goods,  and  condemned  the 
female  to  the  mines,  appears  to  have  been  mitigated ; 
at  least  the  law  of  Claudius,  which  condemned  the 
free-woman  who  married  a  slave  to  servitude,  was  tem- 
pered to  a  sentence  of  separation.  In  the  old  Roman 
society  in  th:  Eastern  Empire  this  distinction  between 
the  marriage  of  the  freeman  and  the  concubinage  of 
the  slave  was  long  recognized  by  Christianity  itself. 
These  unions  were  not  blessed,  as  the  marriages  of 

7  O 

their  superiors  had  soon  begun  to  be,  by  the  Church.1 
Basil  the  Macedonian2  first  enacted  that  the  priestly 
benediction  should  hallow  the  marriage  of  the  slave ; 
but  the  authority  of  the  Emperor  was  counteracted 
by  the  deep-rooted  prejudices  of  centuries.  Later  laws 
appear  to  have  attempted  the  reconcilement  of  the 
Christian  privilege  with  the  social  distinction.  The 
marriages  of  slaves  were  to  be  celebrated  in  the 
Church ;  slaves  and  freemen  were  to  receive  the  same 
nuptial  benediction,  without  conferring  freedom  on  the 
slave.3  As  late  as  the  thirteenth  century  a  mandate  of 
Nicetas,  archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  excommunicates 
masters  who  refuse  to  allow  their  slaves  to  be  married 
in  the  Church. 


*  It  was  thought  that  the  marriage  before  the  church  would  of  itself  con- 
fer civil  freedom.— Biot,  sur  1'Esclavage,  p.  146. 

*  A.D.  867-886. 

*  Constitut.  Imp.  xi.    Jus  Gr.  Roman,  i.  p.  145.    Biot,  p.  213. 


CHAP.  V.  THE  CHRISTIAN  FAMILY.  495 

The  trade  in  slaves  was  still  a  principal  and  recog- 
nized branch  of  commerce.  Man  was  a  mar-  slave-trade, 
ketable  commodity.  The  whole  code  of  Justinian 
speaks  of  the  slave  as  bearing  a  certain  appreciable 
value,  to  be  held  by  the  same  tenure,  transferred  by 
the  same  form,  as  other  property.  It  was  the  weak- 
ness of  Rome,  not  her  humanity  or  her  Christianity, 
which,  by  ceasing  to  supply  the  markets  with  hordes 
of  conquered  barbarians,  diminished  the  trade  ;  and 
Roman  citizens  were  sold,  with  utter  disregard  of 

7  O 

their  haughty  privileges,  by  barbarian  or  Jewish  slave- 
venders.  Throughout  Greek  and  Latin  Christendom, 
however  the  Church,  by  its  precept  and  example, 
might  rank  the  redemption  of  Christian  slaves  from 
bondage  as  a  high  virtue,  the  purchase  and  the  sale 
of  men,  as  property  transferred  from  vendor  to  buyer, 
was  recognized  as  a  legal  transaction  of  the  same  valid- 
ity with  the  sale  of  other  property,  land,  or  cattle. 

The  Christian  family,  in  its  more  restricted  sense, 
comprehending  the  relations  of  husband  and  The  Christian 
wife,  of  parent  and  children,  had  been  the  famUJr- 
centre  from  which  the  Gospel  worked  outwards  with 
all  its  beneficent  energy  on  society.  But  Christianity, 
conscious  of  its  more  profound  and  extensive  influence 
on  morals,  was  in  most  respects  content  to  rest  without 
intruding  into  the  province  of  laws.1  It  superadded 
its  own  sanctity  to  the  dignity  with  which  marriage 
had  been  arrayed  by  the  older  Roman  law :  it  super- 
added  its  own  tenderness  to  that  mitigation  of  Parental 
the  arbitrary  parental  power  with  which  the  P0* 

1  See  throughout  this  chapter— the  Codes,  Pandects,  and  Institutes.  Of 
modern  works,  Gibbon's  celebrated  chapter,  with  Warnki'mig's  notes;  Fer- 
dinand Walter,  Geschichte  des  Romischen  Rechts,  pp.  332  et  seq. 


496  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

more  humane  habits  of  later  times,  and  the  wisdom 
of  the  great  lawyers,  had  controlled  the  despotism  of 
the  Roman  father.  The  Roman  definition  of  marriage 
Marriage.  might  almost  satisfy  the  lofty  demands  of 
Christianity.  Matrimony  is  the  union  of  man  and 
woman,  constraining  them  to  an  inseparable  cohabita- 
tion.1 Polygamy  had  been  prohibited  by  the  Pneto- 
rian  Edict  with  a  distinct  severity  not  to  be  found  in 
the  New  Testament.2  Marriage,  in  the  oldest  Roman 
law,  was  a  religious  rite.  The  purchase  of  the  wife, 
the  partaking  of  food  together,3  took  place  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  pontiffs.  These  ceremonials  were  at  no 
time  absolutely  necessary ;  but  even,  under  the  Repub- 
lic, marriage  was  altogether,  as  to  its  validity,  a  civil 
contract.  With  the  Christians  marriage  had  resumed 
a  more  solemn  religious  character.  Certain  forms  of 
espousals  or  of  wedlock  are  among  the  most  unques- 
tionable usages  of  the  earliest  Christian  antiquity.  On 
marriage  the  Christian  is  taught  to  take  counsel  of  the 
bishop.4  Some  kind  of  benediction  in  the  Church,  or 

1 "  Nuptise  autem  sive  matrimonium  est  viri  et  mulieris  conjunctio,  iiuK- 
viduam  vita?  consuetudinem  continens."  — Instit.  i.  ix.  1. 

2  "  Neminem  qui  sub  ditione  sit  Roman!  nominis  binas  uxores  habere 
posse  vulgo  patet;  cum  etiam  in  Edlcto  Prcetoris  hujusmodi  viri  infamia 
notati  sint:  quam  rein  competens  judex  inultam  esse  mm  patietur."  —  Cod. 
v.  tit.  5,  2.  The  silence  of  the  New  Testament  as  to  polygamy,  excepting 
in  the  doubtful  text  about  the  bishop,  has  been  the  subject  of  much  learned 
contest  and  inquiry.  The  desuetude  into  which  it  had  fallen  among  the 
Jews,  and  its  prohibition  by  Roman  manners,  if  not  by  Roman  laws,  ac- 
counts for  this  silence,  in  my  opinion  most  fully,  considering  the  popular 
character  of  our  Lord's  teaching  and  that  of  his  apostles. 

8  Coemptio  et  confarreatio.  —  The  confarreatio  was  the  more  solemn  form 
of  marriage,  and  could  only  be  annulled  by  certain  tremendous  rites,  which 
represented  as  it  were  the  death  of  the  contracting  parties.  —  Fcstus,  Defar- 
reatio.  It  had  fallen  into  disuse  with  the  extinction  of  the  older  families. 
The  other  two  forms  of  marriage-contract  were  coemptio  nnd  usus. 

*  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Polycarp.  This  passage  is  found  in  Mr.  Cureton's 
Byriac  version. 


CHAP.  V.  MARRIAGE.  497 

in  the  presence  of  the  community,  gave  its  peculiar 
holiness  to  the  marriage  ceremony.1  Christianity  did 
not  decline  some  of  the  gayer  and  more  innocent  usages 
of  Jewish  and  heathen  marriages  —  the  crowns,  the  ring, 
the  veil  of  the  virgin.  Still,  the  Christian  might  hal- 
low his  union  by  the  benediction  of  the  Church ;  the 
betrothal  or  the  espousals  might  take  place  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  religious  community ; 2  yet  the  Roman 
citizen  was  bound  only  by  the  civil  contract.  On  this 
alone  depended  the  validity  of  the  marriage,  the  legit- 
imacy and  right  of  succession  in  the  children.  The 
Church,  or  the  clergy  representing  the  Church,  had  no 
jurisdiction  in  matrimonial  questions  till  after  the  legis- 
lation of  Justinian.  It  was  never  perfect  and  supreme 
in  the  East ;  in  the  West  it  grew  up  gradually  with 
the  all-absorbing  sacerdotal  power. 

As  to  incestuous  marriages,  marriages  within    the 
more    intimate    degrees    of   relationship,    Christianity 
might  repose  upon  the  rigor  of  the  Roman  prohibited 
law.3     There  was  no  necessity  to  recur  to degrees- 
the  books  of  Moses.     That  law  prohibited  the  union 
of  brothers  with  sisters,  of  uncles  and  aunts  with  neph- 
ews and  nieces  :    it  did  not  proscribe  that  of  cousins 
german.4     The  Roman  law  extended  this  prohibition 

1  Tertull.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  c.  2-9;  de  Monogam.  c.  11.     "Unde  sufficiamus 
ad  enarrnndam  felicitatem  ejus  matrimonii,  quod  ecclesia  conciliat,  et  con- 
firmat  oblatio,  et  obsignat  benedictio,"  &c.  &c. :  compare  August!,  Denk- 
wiirdigkeiten,  x.  p.  288. 

2  This  was  a  voluntary  rite,  superinduced  by  Christian  manners  upon  the 
law  of  the  realm. 

8  On  forbidden  marriages,  Gaius  i.  58-62 ;  Ulpian,  v.  6 ;  Collat.  Leg. 
Mosaic,  vi.  4-17;  J.  C.  de  Nupt.  5,  4, 1  to  5. 

*  Plutarch,  Quaest.  Rom.  6;  Cicer.  pro  Cluent.  5;  Capitol.  M.  Antonin. 

The  Emperors  Arcadius  and  Honorius  married  their  cousins.     Instit.  i.  x. 

The  old  law  (Caius,  Instit.  p.  27)  allowed  a  man  to  marry  his  niece  on  the 

brother's,  not  on  the  sister's,  side.    The  Emperor  Claudius  availed  himself 

VOL.  i.  32 


498  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

to  connections  formed  by  affinity  and  by  adoption. 
Connections  formed  by  marriage  were  as  sarn d  :l* 
those  of  natural  kindred,  and  an  union  with  an  adopted 
brother  or  sister  was  as  inflexibly  forbidden  as  in  the 
case  of  blood. 

But  of  the  few  passages  in  the  Code  of  Justinian 
Spiritual  re-  which  reveal  the  Christian  legislator,  that 
8hip8'  extraordinary  one  stands  out  in  peculiar  con- 
trast, which  extends  the  prohibited  degrees  to  spiritual 
relationship.  But  the  manner,  almost  as  it  were  fur- 
tive, in  which  this  prohibition  is  introduced,  shows  how 
it  grew  out  of  the  existing  state  of  Roman  feeling. 
The  jealous  law  had  prohibited,  besides  the  incestuous 
degrees  of  relationship,  the  union  of  a  guardian,  or  the 
son  of  a  guardian,  with  his  ward.1  But  a  man  might 
marry  an  alumna  whom  he  had  educated  as  a  slave, 
but  to  whom  he  had  afterwards  granted  liberty.2  The 
education  as  a  slave  implied  that  he  had  not  towards 
her  the  affection  of  a  parent.  No  one,  however,  would 
be  so  impious  as  to  marry  one  whom  he  had  brought 
up  in  his  house  as  a  daughter.  On  this  principle  it 
was  that,  whether  brought  up  in  his  family  or  not,  the 
sponsorship  in  baptism  implied  an  affection  so  tender 
and  parental  as  to  render  such  a  marriage  unholy. 

of  this  privilege.  The  Roman  law,  in  fact,  was  not  greatly  extended  by  the 
canon  law,  the  prohibitory  degrees  of  which  are  summed  up  in  these  lines, — 

Nata,  soror,  neptis,  raatertera  patris.  et  uxor, 

Et  patrui  conjux,  mater,  privigni,  noverca, 

Uxorlsque  soror,  pririgni  nata,  nurusque, 

Atque  soror  patris  conjungi  lego  vctantur. 

1  Cod.  Justin,  v.  6, 1  et  7. 

2  Cod.  Justin,  v.  4,  26.    There  were  other  civil  prohibitions:  marriage  of 
freeman  with  slave  (see  above),  with  a  freed  man  or  woman,  by  the  Julian 
law  confined  to  senators  and  their  children  (Inst.  16,  de  Sponsal. ;  Justinian 
Cod.  de  Nupt.  28,  5,  4),  of  senators  with  actors  (Ulpian,  xiii.  1,  xvi.  2)  or 
persons  of  infamous  occupations,  &c.  &c.  —  See  Walter,  p.  539. 


CHAP.  V.  MAERIAGE.  499 

Roman  pride  and  rigid  Christian  morality  would 
concur  in  some  of  those  prohibitions  which  interdicted 
free  Romans  from  certain  degrading  or  disreputable 
marriages.  There  could  be  no  marriages  with  slaves: 

O  O 

children    born   from    that    concubinage   were   servile. 

o 

The  Emperor  Valentinian  further  defined  low  and  ab-* 
ject  persons  who  might  not  aspire  to  laAvful  union  with 
freemen  —  actresses,  daughters  of  actresses,  tavern- 
keepers,  the  daughters  of  tavern-keepers,  procurers 
(lenones)  or  gladiators,  or  those  who  had  kept  a  public 
shop.1 

The  Roman  law  had  gradually  expanded  from  that 
exclusive  patrician  haughtiness  which  would  not  recog- 
ni/e  the  marriage  with  plebeians  :  it  had  admitted  unions 
between  all  of  Roman  birth  ;  but  till  Roman  citizen- 
ship had  been  imparted  to  the  whole  Roman  Empire, 
it  would  not  acknowledge  marriage  with  barbarians  to 
be  more  than  concubinage.  Cleopatra  was  called  only 
in  scorn  the  wife  of  Antony.  Berenice  might  not  pre- 
sume to  be  more  than  the  mistress  of  Titus.  The 
Christian  world  closed  marriages  again  within  still 
more  and  more  jealous  limits.  Interdictory  statutes 
declared  marriages  with  Jews  and  heathens  not  only 
invalid  but  adulterous.  The  Councils  condemned  mar- 
riages with  heretics  in  terms  almost  of  equal  rigor. 
The  legislature  was  silent ;  though  Manicheans  espe- 
cially, being  outcasts  by  the  law,  marriages  with  them 
must  have  been  of  questionable  validity.2 

1  All  this,  however,  was  in  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Roman  law. 

2  Cod.  Theodos.  iii.  7,  2,  ix.  7,  5,  xvi.  viii.  6;  Cod.  Justin,  i.  9,  6.     These 
law?,  in  the  time  of  Augustine  and  Jerome,  were  by  no  means  unnecessary. 
''At  mine  plera-que  contemnentes  apostoli  jussionem,  junguntur  gentiiibus 
et  templa  Christi  idolis  prostituunt,  nee  intelligunt  se  corporis  ejus  partem 
isse  cujus  et  costse  sunt." — Hieroii.    In  Jovhi.  i.  10:  compare  Augustin. 


500  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

Yet,  however  lofty  the  theory  of  the  Roman  lawyers 
DiTorce.  as  to  the  sanctity  and  perpetual  obligation  of 
marriage,  it  was  practically  annulled  by  the  admitted 
right  and  by  the  inveterate  usage  of  divorce.  It  was 
a  contract  which  either  party  might  dissolve,  almost 
without  alleged  cause.  In  the  older  law,  the  wife 
being,  like  the  rest  of  his  family,  the  property  of  the 
husband,  he  might  dismiss  her  at  any  time  from  his 
service.  Even  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  admitted 
divorce.  But  the  severer  morals  of  the  older  Repub- 
lic disdained  to  assert  this  privilege.  The  sixth  cen- 
tury of  Roman  greatness  is  said  to  have  begun,  before 
the  public  feeling  was  shocked  by  the  repudiation  of  a 
virtuous  but  barren  wife  by  Spurius  Carvilius  Ruga.1 
But  in  the  later  Republic  the  frequency  of  divorce  was 
at  once  the  sign,  the  cause,  and  the  consequence  of  the 
rapid  depravation  of  morals.  Paulus  ^Emilius  dis- 
carded the  beautiful  Papiria  with  a  scornful  refusal  to 
assign  any  reason.2  Cato,  Cicero,  exchanged  or  dis- 
missed their  wives.  And  the  wives  were  not  behind 
their  husbands  in  vindicating  their  equal  rights.  Paula 
Valeria  repudiated  her  husband  without  cause  to  be- 
come the  wife  of  Decimus  Brutus.3  Au^istus  might 
endeavor  by  laws  and  by  immunities  to  compel  or  allure 
the  reluctant  aristocracy  of  Rome  to  marriage ;  he 
might  limit  divorce  by  statute : 4  but  his  example  more 

de  fid.  et  oper.  c.  19.  They  gradually,  as  heathenism  expired,  became  less 
denunciatory  against  such  marriages,  but  maintained  and  even  increased 
their  rigor  against  Jewish  connections.  —  Concil.  Laodic.  x. :  but  add 
xxxi.;  Concil.  Agath.  Ixvii.;  Concil.  Arelat.  xi. :  U  liber,  xvi.  xvii. 

1  Dion.  Hal.  ii.  93;  Val.  Max.  ii.  1;  Aulus  Gellius.  iv.  3.    Plutarch  in 
Kama. 

*  "  My  shoes  are  new  and  well-made,  but  no  one  knows  where  they  pinch 
»e."  —Plutarch.  Vit,  Paul.  JLmil. 

•  Cic.  ad  Fam.  «  See  the  lex  Papia  Poppaea. 


CHAP.  V.  DIVORCE.  501 

powerfully  counteracted  his  own  laws.  He  compelled 
the  husband  of  Livia  to  divorce  her  during  a  state  of 
pregnancy,  and  by  marrying  her  became  the  father  of 
a  doubtful  offspring.  Maecenas  changed  his  wives  as 
he  changed  his  dress.1  Seneca,  in  his  lofty  Stoic  moral- 
ity, declares  that  the  noble  women  of  Rome  calculated 
the  year  not  by  the  Consuls,  but  by  their  husbands.1 
Juvenal,  in  the  bitterness  of  his  satire,  might  describe 
the  husband  discarding  his  wife  for  the  slightest  infirm- 
ity ; 3  Martial  might  point  an  epigram  against  these 
legal  adulteries ; 4  and  all  these  writers  might  dwell, 
and  with  licensed  exaggeration,  only,  or  principally,  on 
the  manners  of  the  capital  and  those  of  the  higher 
orders  ;  but  throughout  the  Roman  world  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  dissolution  of  those  bonds  which 
unite  the  family  was  the  corroding  plague  of  Roman 
society.  Christianity  must  have  subjugated  public 
feeling  to  a  great  extent ;  it  must  have  overawed,  and 
softened,  and  rendered  attractive  the  marriage  state  by 
countless  examples  in  every  part  of  the  Empire  (like 
that  so  beautifully  described  by  Tertullian),6  far  more 
than  by  its  monastic  notions  of  the  superior  dignity  of 
virginity,  before  even  Constantine  could  venture  on  his 
prohibitory  law  against  divorce.  Marriage  was  abso- 
lutely annulled  by  three  causes,  retirement  to  a  monas- 

1  "  Qui  uxorem  millies  duxit."    Such  is  the  hyperbole  of  Seneca,  who 
hated,  perhaps  because  he  envied,  the  memory  of  Macenas.    "  Quotidians 
repudia."  —  De  Provid.  c.  3. 

2  Senec.  de  Benef.  iii.  16. 

8  Conlige  sarcinulas,  dicet  libertus,  et  exi ; 
Jam  gravis  es  nobis,  et  ssepe  emungeris ;  exi 
Ocius  et  propera :  sicco  venit  altera  naso. 

Sat.  vi.  146. 

*  "  Quae  nubit  toties,  non  nubit,  adultera  lege  est."  —  vi.  7. 

*  Ad  uxor.  ii.  c.  9. 


5n2  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  Hi. 

tic  life,  impotence,  and  captivity.  The  period  at  which 
captivity  dissolved  the  tie,  and  permitted  the  husband 
or  the  wife  to  marry  again,  was  differently  defined  in 
successive  statutes.  The  divorce  law  of  Constantino 
limited  repudiation  to  three  causes:  against  the  hus- 
band, if  he  was  a  homicide,  a  magician,  a  violator  of 
tombs.1  In  either  of  these  cases  the  wife  recovered 
her  dowry.  If  she  sued  for  a  divorce  for  any  other 
cause,  she  forfeited  her  dowry,  her  jewels,  even  to  the 
bodkin  of  her  hair,  and  was  sentenced  to  deportation 
into  a  desert  island.  Against  the  wife  the  three  crimes 
were  adultery,  witchcraft,  or  acting  as  procuress.  If 
the  husband  repudiated  her  for  one  of  these  causes  he 
retained  the  dowry ;  if  for  any  other  the  penalty  was 
the  forfeiture  of  the  dowry.  If  he  married  again,  the 
repudiated  wife  might  enter  his  house  and  seize  the 
dowry  of  the  new  bride.  But  the  severity  of  this  law 
was  mitigated  by  Honorius,2  its  penalties  abrogated  by 
Theodosius  the  younger.  This  law,  which  is  recited 
in  the  Code  and  in  the  Novelise  of  Justinian,  adds  to 
the  causes  which  justify  divorce :  on  the  part  of  the 
wife,  if  the  husband  is  guilty  of  adultery,  high  treason, 
or  forgery,  sacrilege,  pillage  of  churches,  robbery  or 
harboring  robbers,  cattle-driving,  man-stealing,  hav- 
ing, to  the  disgrace  of  his  family,  connection  with  loose 
women  in  the  sight  of  his  wife,  attempting  her  life  by 
poison  or  violence,  or  scourging  her  in  a  manner  insup- 
portable to  a  freewoman.  On  the  part  of  the  husband, 
besides  all  these,  frequenting  the  banquets  of  strangers 
without  his  knowledge  or  consent,  passing  the  night 

1  Cod.  Theod.  de  repud.  iii.  xvi. 

»  Novell,  xvii.  de  repudiis  ad  calc.  cod.  Theodos.    Eitter  observes  that 
the  constitutions  were  not  annulled  by  this  edict,  only  the  penalties. 


CHAP.  V.  COXCUBEN'AGE.  503 

abroad  without  just  cause  or  permission,  or  indulging 
in  the  Circus,  the  theatre,  or  the  amphitheatre,  without 
his  leave.1 

The  legislation  of  Justinian  is  obviously  embarrassed 
with  the  difficulty  of  the  question  of  repudiation  :  it 
reenacts,  but  with  some  hesitation,  the  severe  statutes 
of  Theodosius :  a  succession  of  new  laws  explains,  re- 
stricts, or  confirms  the  plainer  language  of  the  Code. 
Justinian,  indeed,  first  extended  the  penalties  of  the 
laws  against  divorce  to  cases  of  marriage  without 
dower :  if  the  husband  repudiated  an  undowered  wife 
without  just  c?.use,  he  forfeited  to  her  one  fourth  of  his 
property.3  But  the  successor  of  Justinian  was  com- 
pelled to  sweep  away  all  these  provisions,  and  to  re- 
store the  liberty  of  divorce  by  mutual  consent.  The 
Emperor,  as  the  law  declares,  was  beset  by  complaints 
and  remonstrances,  that  inextinguishable  hatred  was  im- 
planted in  families  by  these  restrictions,  that  secret 
poisonings  would  become  common  :  he  resisted  long, 
but  was  compelled  to  yield  to  the  general  clamor.  The 
manners  of  Constantinople,  perhaps  of  the  Roman 
world,  triumphed  over  the  severer  authority  of  the 
Church. 

Concubinage,  a  kind  of  inferior  marriage,  of  which 
the  issue  were  natural  children  not  bastards,  concubinage, 
had  been,  to  a  certain  extent,  legalized  by  Augustus. 
The  Christian  Emperors  endeavored  to  give  something 
of  the  dignity  of  legitimate  marriage  to  this  union,  by 
enlaro-incr  the  rights  of  natural  children  to  succession  ; 

~         •.T"  ~ 

but  in  the  East  it  was  not  abolished,  as  a  legal  union, 

1  Cod.  v.  xvii.;  Pandects,  xxiv.  ii.;  Novella,  xxii.  cxvii.  cxxxiv.    The 
Institutes  avoid  the  subject. 

2  Cod.  v.  xvii.  ii.    To  the  first  causes  were  added,  endeavor  to  procure 
Abortion,  and  indecent  bathing  in  the  public  baths  with  men. 


504  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

till  the  time  of  Leo  the  Philosopher;  in  the  West  it 
was  perpetuated  by  the  pride  of  the  conquering  nu-c-s, 
and  in  some  respects  by  the  practice  of  the  clergy  them- 
selves to  a  much  later  period.1 

That  primeval  constitution  of  Roman  society,  which 
Parent^  made  each  family  a  little  state,  with  its  pe- 
P°wer-  culiar  sacrifices  and  peculiar  jurisdiction,  of 
which  the  father  was  Priest  and  King,  had  long  fallen 
into  disuse.  The  parental  power,  in  theory  absolute, 
had  been  limited  by  public  feeling  and  long  desuetude. 
Even  under  the  old  republic,  Brutus  and  Manlius  were 
magistrates  and  generals  as  well  as  fathers  ;  the  execu- 
tion of  their  sons  was  a  sacrifice  to  Roman  liberty  and 
to  Roman  discipline,  not  an  exertion  of  parental  author- 
ity. Erixo,  a  Roman  knight  in  the  time  of  Seneca, 
whose  son  died  under  his  chastisement,  was  pursued 
through  the  forum  by  the  infuriated  people.2  Alexan- 
der Severus  limited  the  parental  power  by  law.  It  was 
well  perhaps  for  human  nature  that  this  change  had 
taken  place  before  the  promulgation  of  Christianity. 
It  was  spared  those  domestic  martyrdoms  which  might 
have  taken  place  in  many  families.  For  that  which 
the  divine  wisdom  of  its  founder  had  foreshown  was 
inevitable.  Youth,  in  its  prospective  ardor,  would  be 
more  prone  to  accept  the  new  religion,  than  age,  rig- 
idly attached  to  ancient  and  established  usages.  It  is 
the  constant  reproach,  with  which  the  apologists  of 
Christianity  have  to  contend,  that  it  nurtured  filial  dis- 
obedience, and  taught  children  to  revolt  against  the 
authority  of  parents.3  But  this  conflict  was  over  long 

1  Ducange,  art.  Concubina. 

*  Seneca  de  Clement  L  14. 

*  Tertull.  Apologet.  c.  3;   Origen  contra  Cels.;  Hieronjra.  Epist  ad 
Laetam. 


CHAP.  V.  INFANTICIDE.  503 

before  Christianity  entered  into  Roman  legislation. 
The  life  of  the  child  was  as  sacred  as  that  of  the  par- 
ent ;  and  Constantine,  when  he  branded  the  murder 
of  a  son  with  the  name  of  parricide,  hardly  advanced 
upon  the  dominant  feeling.  Some  power  remained  of 
moderate  chastisement,  but  even  this  was  liable  to  the 
control  of  law.  Disinheritance  remained  the  only  pen- 
alty which  the  father  could  arbitrarily  inflict  upon  the 
son ;  for  by  degrees  that  absolute  possession  of  all  the 
property  of  the  son  which  of  old  belonged  to  the  father 
had  been  limited.  The  peculium  over  which  full  power 
was  vested  in  the  son  was  extended  by  Augustus,  Tra- 
jan, and  Hadrian  to  all  which  he  might  acquire  in 
military  service,  even  to  captives  who  became  his 
slaves,  to  be  disposed  of  by  gift  or  will ;  by  Coustan- 
tine  and  later  Emperors  to  all  emoluments  obtained  in 
civil  emplovments ;  by  Justinian  to  the  inheritance,  in 
certain  cases,  of  the  mother's  property. 

Infanticide  was  thus  a  crime  by  law,  but  the  sale 
and  exposure  of  children,  the  most  obstinate  infanticide, 
vestige  of  the  arbitrary  parental  power,  aggravated 
by  the  increasing  misery  of  the  times,  still  contended 
with  the  humane  severity  of  the  laws,  and  the  fervent 
denunciations  of  the  Christian  teachers.1  The  sale  of 
children  was  prohibited  by  law,  yet  prevailed  to  late 
times.  The  Emperor  Trajan  had  declared  that  a  free- 
born  child,  exposed  by  its  parents  and  brought  up  by  a 
stranger,  did  not  forfeit  its  liberty.2  The  Christian 
Emperor  first  declared  exposure  of  infants  a  crime;3 

1  Athenagor.  Apologet.  Tertullian,  Apologet.  9;  Lactantius,  D.  I.  vi.  20. 

2  Pliny,  Epist.  x.  7. 

8  The  Cod.  Justin,  iv.  43, 1,  confirmed  the  declaration  of  the  law  bj  Dio- 
cletian. "  Liberos  a  parentibus  neque  venditionis  neque  donationis  titulo, 
aeque  pignoris  jure,  aut  alio  quolibet  modo,  nee  sub  praetextu  ignorantia 


606  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

at  the  same  time  lie  declared  the  children  of  such  poor 
parents  as  should  be  unable  to  nourish  them,  children 
of  the  state,  to  be  clothed  and  supported  by  the  pub- 
lic treasury.  This  vast  poor  law  could  not  have 
been  carried  into  effect,  or  was  necessarily  modified  by 
new  laws,  providing  for  children  thus  exposed.  The 
stranger  who  took  up  such  child  and  maintained  it, 
might,  according  to  a  law  of  Theodosius  the  Great, 
bring  it  up  as  his  own  son,  or  as  his  slave.  The  father 
who  had  exposed  his  child,  having  abandoned  his 
paternal  power,  could  not  reclaim  it;  he,  however, 
who  had  sold  his  child  through  poverty  might  redeem 
it  by  paying  the  same  price,  or  replacing  it  by  another 
slave.  But  one  of  Justinian's  supplementary  laws 
both  shows  the  unrepressed  frequency  of  the  practice, 
and  by  its  strong  language  the  profound  sense  of  its 
inhumanity.  It  was  now  the  custom  to  leave  the  chil- 
dren not  merely  in  the  streets,  but  in  the  churches,  in 
order,  no  doubt,  to  appeal  to  the  kindness  of  the  clergy 
and  the  more  pious  worshippers.  If,  says  the  law, 
worn-out  slaves,  who  are  exposed  by  their  masters, 
obtain  their  freedom,  how  much  the  rather  freeborn 
infants  ?  But,  as  if  aware  that  this  was  rather  a 
penalty  on  the  charitable  person,  who  might  undertake 
the  care  of  such  children  (for  whom  it  might  be  better 
to  be  brought  up  as  slaves  than  left  to  perish),  condign 
punishment  is  threatened,  it  is  to  be  presumed  the  penal- 
ty for  murder,  against  the  guilty  parties.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  the  practices  though  not  so  clearly  trace- 

accipientes,  in  a  limn  transferri  posse,  manifestissimi  juris  est."  Yet  in  the 
life  of  Paphnutus  by  Jerome  we  read:  "  Mihi  est  maritus  qui  lismlis  debiti 
gratifi,  suspensus  est  et  flagellatus,  ac  poenis  omnibus  cruciatu.s  servatur  in 
carcere.  Tres  autem  nobis  filii  fuerunt,  qui  pro  ejusdem  debiti  necessitate 
distracti  sunt." 


CHAP.  V.  LAW  OF  PROPERTY.  507 

able,  expired  but  slowly  in  the  East ;  in  the  West  it  still 
required  the  decrees  of  Councils  and  the  edicts  of  sov- 
ereigns to  extirpate  this  pertinacious  crime.1 

B.  Christianity  made  no  change  in  the  tenure  or 
succession  to  property.  The  Christian  churches  suc- 
ceeded to  that  sanctity  which  the  ancient  law  Law  of 
had  attributed  to  the  temples ;  as  soon  as  they  Pr°Perty- 
were  consecrated  they  became  public  property,  and 
could  not  be  alienated  to  any  other  use.  The  ground 
itself  was  hallowed,  and  remained  so  even  after  the 
temple  had  been  destroyed.  This  was  an  axiom  of 
the  heathen  Papinian.2  Gifts  to  temples  were  alike 
inalienable,  nor  could  they  be  pledged ;  the  exception 
in  the  Justinian  code  betrays  at  once  the  decline  of  the 
Roman  power,  and  the  silent  progress  of  Christian 
humanity.  They  could  be  sold  or  pledged  for  the 
redemption  of  captives,  a  purpose  which  the  old  Roman 
law  would  have  disdained  to  contemplate.3  The  burial 
of  the  dead  made  ground  holy.  This  consecration 
might  be  made  by  any  private  person ;  but  a  public 
burial-ground  became,  in  a  certain  sense,  public  prop- 
erty.4 

The  great  law  of  Constantine,  which   enabled  the 

1  Capit.  vi.  c.  142;  Decret.  Gregor.  de  exposit.  lib.  ii.  971, 972,  973. 

2  Instit.  ii.  1,  8.    Papinian  lived  under  the  reign  of  Severus. 

8  Property  might  be  bequeathed  in  general  terms  for  the  redemption  of 
captives,  c.  i.  3,  48. 

*  Instit.  ii.  1,  9.  If  the  owner  gave  consent,  a  body  might  be  interred  in 
any  ground,  which  thereby  became  sacred ;  if  the  owner  afterwards  wished 
to  withdraw  his  consent,  he  could  not :  his  right  was  lost  in  the  sanctity  of 
the  ground.  Paolo  Sarpi  supposes,  but  quotes  no  authority,  that  the 
churches  had  even  before  Constantine  received  lands  by  bequest,  but  con- 
trary to  law.  They  were  confiscated  by  Diocletian.  The  following  is  a  law 
of  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  A.D.  290:  "Collegium,  si  nullo  special!  privi- 
legio  subnixum  sit,  haereditatem  capere  non  posse,  dubium  non  est.' '  —  C- 
8  de  haered.  instit. ;  Sarpi  Opere,  iv.  71. 


508  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

Christian  churches  to  receive  gifts  and  bequests,  was 
but  an  extension  or  transference  of  the  right  belonging 
to  heathen  temples1  and  priesthoods,  many  of  A\hich 
were  endowed  with  large  estates.2  Even  during  the 
reign  of  Constantine  some  parts  of  the  estates  of  the 
heathen  temples  were  made  over  to  the  Christians  ;  but 
the  private  offerings  of  the  faithful,  by  donation  and  by 
will,  poured  in  with  boundless  prodigality.  Already 
haeridipety,  seeking  inheritances  by  undue  means, 
is  branded  as  an  ecclesiastical  vice  by  the  severer 
teachers,  and  restrained  by  law ; 3  already  the  abuses  of 
wealth  begin  to  appear.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions 
enact  that  the  property  of  the  bishop  should  be  kept 
distinct  from  that  of  his  see,4  his  own  he  may  be- 
queath by  will  to  his  wife,  his  children,  or  other  heirs ; 
the  property  of  the  Church  is  to  descend  sacred  and 
inviolate.  Already  bishops  are  reproached,  as  too 
much  involved  in  worldly  affairs  ;  Councils  declare  that 
they  must  be  relieved  from  the  administration  of  the 
temporal  concerns  of  their  churches ;  a  steward  or 
oeconomus  must  be  appointed  in  each  church  for  this 
end.5  The  sovereigns,  instead  of  endeavoring  to  set 
bounds  to  this  tide  of  wealth  which  was  setting  into 
the  Church,  to  the  loss  of  the  imperial  exchequer, 
swelled  it  by  their  own  munificence,  as  well  as  by  the 

1 A  law  in  the  Justinian  code  declares  all  gifts  or  bequests  to  heathen 
persons  or  places  (i.  e.  priests  and  temples)  null  and  void.  —  Leo.  1. 11,  9. 

a  On  the  church  property  of  the  ancients  see  the  curious  passage  in  Ap- 
pian.  During  the  pressure  of  the  Mithridatic  war,  Sylla  sold  as  much  of 
the  property  devoted  to  sacrifices  as  produced  9000  pounds  of  gold.  —  De 
Bello  Mithrid.,  c.  xxii. 

8  Hieronymus  in  Nepot.,  Epist.  xxxiv.  The  law  of  Valentinian.  See 
cage  68. 

4  Apostol.  Constit.  can.  33. 

•  Chrys.  Horn.  Ixxxvi.  in  Mathaeum.  Concil.  Antioch.  Synod.  Chalced. 
can.  26. 


CHAP.  V.  CHURCH  PROPEETY.  509 

tenor  of  their  laws.  They  dared  not  incur  the  re- 
proach at  once  of  want  of  respect  to  the  clergy,  of 
parsimony  to  the  poor,  of  stinting  the  magnificence 
of  the  edifices,  now  everywhere  rising  for  the  honor  of 
God.  These  were  the  three  acknowledged  purposes  to 
which  were  devoted  the  ecclesiastical  revenues. 

The  legislation  of  Justinian  confirmed  all  the  pro- 
visions of  former  Christian  emperors  for  the  security 
and  enlargement  of  ecclesiastical  wealth.  A  law  of 
Leo  and  Anthemius  was  the  primary  palladium  of 
Church  property.  It  declared  every  kind  of  property 
in  land,  in  houses  or  rents,  in  movables,  in  peasants  or 
slaves,  absolutely  inalienable  even  with  the  concurrent 
consent  of  the  bishop,  the  steward,  and  all  the  clergy. 
All  such  sacrilegious  alienations  by  gift,  bequest,  or 
exchange,  were  absolutely  null  and  void.  The  steward 
guilty  of  such  alienation  lost  his  office,  and  was  bound 
to  make  good  the  loss  out  of  his  own  property.  The 
notaries  Avho  drew  such  deeds  were  condemned  to  per- 
petual exile ;  the  judges  who  confirmed  them  lost  their 
office  and  forfeited  all  their  property.1  The  lease  or 
usufruct  only  could  be  granted  under  certain  precise 
stipulations. 

A  law  of  Valentinian  and  Marcian  empowered  all 
widows,  deaconesses,  or  nuns  to  bequeath  to  any 

i  "Nee  si  omnes  cum  religiose  episcopo  et  oeconotno  cleric!  in  eorurn  pos- 
sessiomim  alienationem  consentiant."  —  c.  i.  2,  xiv.  This  law,  which  wu 
originally  limited  to  the  church  of  Constantinople,  was  recnacted  with 
some  slight  alterations  by  Anastasius  and  by  Justinian. — Constit.  7.  Jus- 
tinian extended  this  law  to  the  whole  empire,  including  the  West.  —  Nov. 
7.  Const,  ix.  These  two  constitutions  (c.  i.  11,  24)  gave  the  right  of  claim- 
ing bequests  to  the  church  for  100  years;  this  was  artw w:\nls  limited  to 
40.  —  Nov.  Constit.  iii.  131-36.  The  emperor  might,  for  the  public  good, 
receive  church  property  in  exchange,  giving  more  valuable  property.  — 
Nov.  7. 


510  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

church,  chapel,  body  of  clergy,  monastery,  or  to  the 
poor,  the  whole  or  any  part  of  their  property.  Zeno 
enacted  that  any  one  who  had  bestowed  any  property  on 
any  martyr,  prophet,  or  angel,  to  build  a  house  of  prayer ; 
in  case  he  died  before  the  work  was  finished,  his  heirs 
were  bound  to  complete  it.1  The  same  applied  to 
caravansaries,  hospitals,  or  almshouses.  The  bishop  or 
his  officers  might  exact  the  completion  to  the  full.2 
Justinian  recognizes  bequests  simply  to  Jesus  Christ, 
which  might  be  claimed  by  the  principal  church  of  the 
city ;  and  bequest  made  to  any  archangel  or  saint, 
without  specified  place,  went  to  the  nearest  church 
dedicated  to  that  angel  or  saint.3 

Founders  of  churches  possessed  the  right  of  patron- 
age, but  the  bishop  might  refuse  an  unqualified  priest.4 

All  church  property  was  declared  free  from  baser 
services,  and  from  extraordinary  contributions. 

Thus  the  Church  might  constantly  receive  and  never 
depart  from  property;  and  thus  began  its  immunities 
from  public  burdens.  In  the  rapid  change  of  mas- 
ters, undergone  in  far  the  larger  part  of  the  Roman 
world,  property  of  all  kinds  was  constantly  accumu- 
lating in  the  hands  of  the  Church,  which  rarely,  ex- 
cept through  fraud  or  force,  relaxed  its  grasp.  The 
Church  was  the  sole  proprietor,  whom  forfeiture  or 
confiscation  could  never  reach  ;  whose  title  was  never 
antiquated  ;  before  whose  hallowed  boundaries  violence 
stood  rebuked  ;  whom  the  law  guarded  again st  her 
own  waste  or  prodigality ;  to  whom  it  was  the  height 
of  piety,  almost  insured  salvation,  to  give  or  to  be- 
queath, sacrilege  to  despoil,  or  to  defraud ;  whose 

1  C.  i.  2,  xv.  2  c.  i.  3,  45. 

»Cod.  i.  2,  26.  <  Nov.  123.    Nov.  Constit.  57,  2. 


CHAP.  V.  PENAL  LAWS.  511 

property  if  alienated  was  held  under  a  perpetual  curse, 
which  either  withered  its  harvest,  or  brought  disaster 

7  O 

and  ruin  on  the  wrongful  possessor. 

C.  The  penal  laws  of  the  Roman  Empire,  except- 
ing in  the  inflexible  distinction  drawn  between  the 
freeman  and  the  slave,  were  not  immoderately  severe, 
nor  especially  barbarous  in  the  execution  of  punish- 
ment. In  this  respect  Christianity  introduced  no  great 
mitigation.  The  abolition  of  crucifixion  as  a  punish- 
ment by  Constantino  was  an  act  rather  of  religious 
reverence  than  of  humanity.  Another  law  of  Con- 
stantine,  if  more  rigorously  just,  sanctions  the  cruel 
iniquity,  which  continued  for  centuries  of  Christian 
legislation  —  the  torture.  No  one  could  be  executed 
for  a  capital  crime,  murder,  magic,  adultery,  except 
after  his  own  confession,  or  the  unanimous  confession 
of  all  persons  interrogated  or  submitted  to  torture.1 

Some  crimes  were  either  made  capital  or  more  rig- 
idly and  summarily  punished  with  death  by  the  ab- 
horrence of  Christianity  for  sensual  indulgences.  The 
violation  of  virgins,  widows,  or  deaconesses  professing 
a  religious  life,  was  made  a  capital  offence,  to  be  sum- 
marily punished.2 

The  crime  against  nature,  the  deep  reproach  of 
Greek  and  Roman  manners,  was  capitally  punished.3 

But  remarkable  powers  had  been  given  by  former 
Emperors,  and  enlarged  by  Justinian,  or  rather,  it  was 
made  a  part  of  the  episcopal  function,  to  "visit  every 


1  By  the  Justinian  code,  Nov.  cxxiii.  c.  31,  torture  (ftaaavoi)  and 
were  the  punishment  of  any  one  who  insulted  a  bishop  or  presbyter  in  the 
church.     The  disturbance  of  the  sacred  rites  was  a  capital  offence. 

2  Cod.  i.  3,  53. 

8  Two  bishops  were  publicly  executed  for  this  offence  by  Justinian.  — 
Fheophanes,  p.  27. 


512  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

month  the  state  prisons,  to  inquire  into  the  offences 
of  all  persons  committed,  and  to  admonish  the  civil 
authorities  to  proceed  according  to  the  law.1  Private 
prisons  were  prohibited  ;  the  bishop  was  empowered 
to  order  all  such  illegal  places  of  confinement  to  be 
broken  open,  and  the  prisoners  set  free.2 

In  certain  points  the  bishops  were  the  legal  as  well 
as  the  spiritual  guardians  of  public  morality.  They 
had  power  to  suppress  gaming  of  certain  prohibited 
kinds.3  With  the  presidents  of  the  provinces  they 
might  prevent  women  from  being  forced  on  the  stage, 
or  from  being  retained  against  their  will  in  that  dan- 
gerous and  infamous  profession.4  If  the  president,  in 
his  office  of  purveyor  for  the  public  amusement,  should 
be  the  person  in  fault,  the  bishop  was  to  act  of  himself, 
either  of  his  own  authority  or  by  appeal  to  the  Em- 
peror. 

A  new  class  of  crimes,  if  not  introduced  by  Chris- 
tianity, became  multiplied,  rigorously  defined,  merci- 
lessly condemned.  The  ancient  Roman  theory,  that 
the  religion  of  the  State  must  be  the  religion  of  the 
people,  which  Christianity  had  broken  to  pieces  by  its 
inflexible  resistance,  was  restored  in  more  than  its 
former  rigor.  The  code  of  Justinian  confirmed  the 
laws  of  Theodosius  and  his  successors,  which  declared 
certain  heresies,  Manicheism  and  Donatism,  crimes 
against  the  State,  as  affecting  the  common  welfare. 
The  crime  was  punishable  by  confiscation  of  all  proper- 
ty, and  incompetency  to  inherit  or  to  bequeath.  Death 
did  not  secure  the  hidden  heretic  from  prosecution? 
as  in  high  treason,  he  might  be  convicted  in  his  grave. 

»  Cod.  14,22.  «  Cod.  i.  4,  22. 

*  Cod.  h  4, 14.  <  De  Episcop.  Audient.  ii.  4,  33. 


CHAP.  T.  HERETICS.  513 

Not  only  was  his  testament  Invalid,  but  inheritance 
could  not  descend  through  him.  All  who  harbored 
such  heretics  were  liable  to  punishment ;  their  slaves 
might  desert  them,  and  transfer  themselves  to  an  or- 
thodox master.1  The  list  of  proscribed  heretics  grad- 
ually grew  wider.  The  Manicheans  were  driven 
still  farther  away  from  the  sympathies  of  mankind  ; 
by  one  Greek  constitution  they  were  condemned  to 
capital  punishment.  Xear  thirty  names  of  less  de- 
tested heretics  are  recited  in  a  law  of  Theodosius  the 
younger,  to  which  were  added,  in  the  time  of  Justin- 
ian. Xestorians,  Eutychians,  Apollinarians.  The  books 
of  all  these  sects  were  to  be  burned  ;  yet  the  formida- 
ble number  of  these  heretics  made,  no  doubt,  the  gen- 
eral execution  of  the  laws  impossible.  But  the  Jus- 
tinian code,  having  defined  as  heretics  all  who  do  not 
believe  the  Catholic  faith,  declares  such  heretics,  as 
well  as  Pagans,  Jews,  and  Samaritans,  incapable  of 
holding  civil  or  military  offices,  except  in  the  lowest 
ranks  of  the  latter ;  2  they  could  attain  to  no  civic 
dignity  which  was  held  in  honor,  as  that  of  the  de- 

O  •/ 

fensors,  though  such  offices  as  were  burdensome  might 
be  imposed  even  on  Jews.3  The  assemblies  of  all  her- 
etics were  forbidden,  their  books  were  to  be  collect- 
ed and  burned,  their  rites,  baptisms,  and  ordinations 
prohibited.4  Children  of  heretical  parents  might  em- 
brace orthodoxy ;  the  males  the  parent  could  not 
disinherit,  to  the  females  he  was  bound  to  give  an 
adequate  dowry.5  The  testimony  of  Manicheans,  of 

»  Cod.  de  Haeret.  i.  5, 11. 

2  There  was  an  exception  for  the  Goths  in  the  service  of  the  Empire. 
«  Cod.  i.  ix.  5.  *  Cod.  i.  5,  21. 

«  Cod.  i.  5,  21. 
VOL.  i.  33 


514  LATIN    CHBISTIAXITY.  BOOK  HI 

Samaritans,  and  Pagans  could  not  be  received  ;  apos- 
tates to  any  of  these  sects  and  religions  lost  all  their 
former  privileges,  and  were  liable  to  all  penalties.1 

II.  The  Barbaric  Laws2  differed  from  those  of  the 
Barbaric  empire  in  this  important  point.  The  Roman 
jurisprudence  issued  entirely  from  the  will  of 
the  Emperor.3  The  ancient  laws,  whether  of  the  Re- 
public or  of  his  imperial  predecessors,  received  their 
final  sanction,  as  comprehended  within  his  code:  the 
answers  of  the  great  lawyers,  the  accredited  legal 
maxims,  obtained  their  perpetuity,  and  became  the 
permanent  statutes  of  the  realm  through  the  same  au- 
thority. The  barbaric  were  national  codes,  framed 
and  enacted  by  the  King,  with  the  advice  and  with 
the  consent  of  the  great  council  of  his  nobles,  the 
flower  and  representative  of  the  nation.4  They  were 

1  Cod.  i.  7. 

2  All  the  barbarian  codes  are  in  Latin,  but  German  words  are  perpetually 
introduced  for  offices  and  usages  purely  Teutonic.  —  Wergelda,  Rachim- 
burg.     See  Eichhorn,  Staats-  und  Rechtsgeschichte,  i.  p.  232.     See  curious 
extract  from  Lombard  Law  on  manumission,  p.  331.    The  collection  which 
I  have  chiefly  used  is  the  latest,  that  of  Canciani,  Leges  Barbarorum,  Ven- 
ice, 1781. 

*  Many  Christians,  even  of  honorable  birth,  according  to  Salvian,  fled 
from  the  cruel  oppressions  of  the  Roman  law,  no  doubt  the  fiscal  part,  and 
took  refuge  among  the  heathen  barbarians.  "  Inter  haec  vastantur  paupe- 
res,  vidtue  gemunt,  orphan!  proculcantur,  in  tantum  ut  imilti  eorum  et  non 
obscnris  natalibus  editi  et  liberaliter  instituti  ad  hostes  fujjiunt.  ne  persecu- 
tionis  publicte  afflictione  moriantur,  qtuerentes  scilicet  apud  barbaros  Koiua- 
num  humanum,  quia  apud  Romanes  barbaram  inhumanitatem  ferre  non 
possunt.  Et  quamvis  ab  his,  ad  quos  confugiunt,  discrepent  ritu.  disc-re- 
pent lingua,  ipso  etiam,  ut  ita  dicam,  corporum  atque  induviarum  barbari- 
carum  fcetore  dissentiant,  malunt  tamen  in  barbaris  pati  cult  urn  di-.-imilein 
quam  in  Romanis  injustitiam  ssevientem." — De  Gub.  Dei,  lib.  v. 

4  "  Hoc  decretum  est  apud  Regem  et  principes  eju?,  et  apud  cvnctumpop- 
vlum  Christianum,  qui  infra  regnum  Merovingorum  consi.«tunt." — Praef. 
ad  Leg.  Ripuar.  The  Salic  law  is  that  of  the  Gens  Francerum  inclyta, 
among  whose  praises  it  is  that  they  had  subdued  those  Romans,  who  burned 
or  slew  the  martyrs,  while  the  Franks  adorn  their  relics  with  gold  and 
precious  stones.  —  Prsef.  ad  Leg.  Salic. 


CHAP.  V.      LAWS  OF  THEODORIC  AND  ATHALARIC.         515 

the  laws  of  the  people  as  well  as  of  the  King.  As 
by  degrees  the  bishops  became  nobles,  as  they  were 
summoned  or  took  their  place  in  the  great  council, 
their  influence  becomes  more  distinct  and  manifest : 
they  are  joint  legislators  with  the  King  and  the 
nobles,  and  their  superior  intelligence,1  as  the  only 
lettered  class,  gives  them  great  opportunity  of  modi- 
fying, in  the  interest  of  religion  or  in  their  own,  the 
statutes  of  the  rising  kingdoms.  This,  however,  was 
of  a  later  period.  The  earliest  of  these  codes,  the 
Edict  of  Theodoric,  is  so  entirely  Roman, 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  called  barbaric  juris-  2m( 
prudence.  It  is  Roman  in  its  general  pro- Uric' 
visions,  in  its  language,  in  its  penalties  ;  it  is  Roman 
in  the  supreme  and  imperial  power  of  legislation  as- 
sumed by  the  King:  there  is,  in  fact,  no  Ostrogothic 
code.  The  silence  as  to  ecclesiastical  matters  in  the 
edicts  of  Theodoric  and  Athalaric  arises  from  the 
peculiar  position  of  Theodoric,  an  Arian  sovereign  in 
the  midst  of  Catholicism  dominant  in  Rome  and 
throughout  Italy.2  But  there  is  a  singular  illustra- 
tion of  the  theory  of  ecclesiastical  power,  as  vested 
in  the  temporal  sovereign.  The  Arian  Athalaric, 
the  son  of  Theodoric,  at  the  request  of  the  Pope  him- 
self, issues  a  strong  edict  against  simony,  which  by  his 
command  is  affixed,  with  a  decree  of  the  Senate  to 
the  same  effect,  before  the  porch  of  St.  Peter's.  The 

1  The  first  instance  of  this  is  in  the  preface  to  the  code  of  Alaric.    "  Util- 
itates  populi  nostri  propitia  divinitate  tractantes,  hoc  quoque  quod  in  legi- 
bus  videbatur  iniquum  meliori  deliberatione  corrigimus,  ut  omnis  legnm 
Romanarurn  et  antiqui  juris  obscuritas,  adhibitis  sacerdotibus  et  nobilibus 
viris.  in  lucem  inteUigentia  meKoris  deducta  resplendeat." 

2  There  are  some  provisions  favorable  to  the  church  borrowed  from  the 
Roman  law.     The  church  inherited  all  the  property  of  clergy  dying  intes- 
tate.—  xxvii. :  apud  Canciani,  i.  p.  15. 


516  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI 

points  in  which  the  Ostrogothic  edict  departs  from 
the  Roman  law  are  :  I.  The  stronger  difference  drawn 
between  the  crimes  of  the  nobles  and  of  the  inferior 
classes.  Already  the  Teutonic  principle  of  estimat- 
ing all  crimes  at  a  certain  pecuniary  amount,  accord- 
ing to  the  social  rank  of  the  injured  person,  the 
wehrgelt,  is  beginning  to  appear,  as  well  as  its  con- 
sequence, that  he  who  could  not  pay  by  money  must 
pay  by  his  life.1  False  witness  is  punished  with  death 
in  the  poor,  by  a  fine  in  the  rich ;  the  incendiary  is 
burned  alive  if  a  slave  or  serf, 2  if  free  he  has  only  to 
replace  the  amount  of  damage ;  should  he  be  insolvent, 
he  is  condemned  to  beating  and  exile.  Wizards,  if  of 
honorable  birth,  were  punished  with  exile ;  if  of 
humbler  descent,  with  death ;  while  a  freeborn  adul- 
teress was  sentenced  to  death,  in  a  vile  and  vulgar 
woman  the  crime  was  venial.8  In  seduction,  the  se- 
ducer was  obliged  to  marry  the  woman  ;  if  married, 
to  endow  her  with  a  third  of  his  estate  ;  if  ignoble,  he 
suffered  death.4  II.  The  edict,  in  the  severity  of  its 
punishments,  exceeds  the  Roman  law,  especially,  as 
might  be  expected  among  the  Goths,  in  all  crimes  re- 
lating to  the  violation  of  chastity.  Capital  punish- 
ments were  multiplied,  and  capital  punishments  almost 
unknown  to  the  Roman  law.  The  author  of  sedition 
in  the  city  or  the  camp  was  to  be  burned  alive.6  The 
male  adulterer  was  to  be  burned,  the  female  capitally 
punished.6  Death  was  enacted  against  pagans,  sooth- 
sayers, lowborn  wizards  ;  against  destroyers  of  tombs, 
against  kidnappers  of  freemen,  against  forgery,  against 
the  judge  who  sentenced  contrary  to  law ; 7  against 

i  xc.  1.  «  xcvii.  colonus.  8  Ixii.  *  lix. 

•  otii.  « Ixi.  7  H. 


CHAP.  V.  CLERGY  CO-LEGISLATORS.  517 

robbery    of    churches,    or   forcibly   dragging    persons 
thence,  death.1 

Not  only  were  adulterers  capitally  punished,  but 
whoever  lent  his  house  for  the  perpetration  of  the 
crime,  or  persuaded  the  woman  to  its  perpetration.3 
Rape  of  a  free-woman  or  virgin  was  death,  which  ex- 
tended to  all  who  were  aiding  or  abetting.  Parents 
neglecting  to  prosecute  for  rape  on  a  girl  under  age 
were  condemned  to  exile.  The  consenting  female  suf- 
fered death.3 

The  law  of  divorce,  however,  remained  Roman  :  it 
admitted  the  same  causes,  and  was  limited  by  the  same 
restrictions.4  The  Edict  of  Athalaric  against  concu- 
binage reduced  the  children  of  the  freeborn  concubine 
to  slavery.  The  slave  concubine  was  in  the  power  of 
the  matron,  who  might  inflict  any  punishment  short  of 
bloodshed.  Polygamy  was  expressly  forbidden.5 

The  Lombard  laws  are  issued  by  King  Rotharis,6 
with  the  advice  of  his  nobles.7     The  Burgundian,  in 
their  whole   character,  are   intermediate   between  the 
Roman  and  Barbaric  jurisprudence.     The  bishops  first 
appear  as  co-legislators  among  the  Visigoths.    Already 
in  France   Alaric  the   Visigoth    adopts   the  Clergy  ^ 
abridgment  of   the  Roman  law,  by  the  ad-legisla 
vice  of  his  priests  as  well  as  of  his  nobles.8     But  it  is 

1  CXXV. 

2  xxxix.  So  also  the  Lombard  Law,  ccxii.    A  man  might  defend  himself 
from  a  charge  of  adultery  by  an  oath  or  by  his  champion.  —  ccxiv. 

8  xvii.  xviii. 
*liv. 

5  vii.  vi. 

6  The  laws  of  Rotharis  were  written  seventy-six  years  after  the  invasion 
of  Italy  by  the  Lombards.    The  Lombards,  it  must  be  remembered,  were 
still  Arians.     The  church,  therefore,  is  not  co-legislative  with  the  nobles. 

1  "  Cum  primatibus  meis  judicibus."  —  Prsefat.  in  Canciani,  vol.  i. 
8"Adhibitis  sacerdotibus  ac  nobilibus  viris;"  compare   Canciani,   in 


518  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HL 

in  Spain,  after  the  Visigoths  had  cast  off  their  Arian- 
ism,  that  the  bishops  more  manifestly  influence  the 
whole  character  of  the  legislation.  The  synods  of  To- 
ledo were  not  merely  national  councils,  but  parlia- 
ments of  the  realm.1  After  the  ecclesiastical  affairs 
had  been  transacted,  the  bishops  and  nobles  met  to- 
gether, and  with  the  royal  sanction  enacted  laws.2 
The  people  gave  their  assent.  The  King  himself  is 
subject  to  the  Visigothic  law.  The  unlawful  usurper 
of  the  Crown  is  subject  to  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  to 
civil  penalties,  to  excommunication  as  well  as  to  death. 
Even  ecclesiastics  consenting  to  such  treason  are  to  be 
involved  in  the  interdict.  These  ecclesiastical  lawgiv- 
ers, while  they  arm  themselves  with  great  powers  for 
the  public  good,  claim  no  immunity.  Bishops  are  lia- 
ble to  fines  for  disregard  of  judges'  orders.3  The  clergy 
are  amenable  to  the  same  penalty  for  contumacy  as  the 
laity.4  But  great  powers  are  given  to  the  bishops  to 
restrain  unjust  judges,  even  the  counts.6  The  terrible 
laws  against  heresy,  and  the  atrocious  juridical  persecu- 
tions of  the  Jews,  already  designate  Spain  as  the  throne 
and  centre  of  merciless  bigotry. 

The  Salic  law  proclaims  itself  that  of  the  noble  na- 

Pradat.  p.  xiii.  Eichhorn,  not  reckoning  the  Edict  of  Theodoric,  arranges 
the  codes  thus:  I.  Lex  Visigothica  —  the  origin  of  the  Fuero  Juzgo  — 
which,  however,  has  many  late  additions.  II.  Lex  Salica.  III.  The  Bur- 
trundian.  IV.  Ripuarica,  Ale.mannica,  Bavarica.  These  betray  higher 
kingly  power. 

*  Canciani,  iv.  p.  52. 

a  Leges  Visigoth,  ii.  1,  6. 
«  ii.  1, 18,  ibid. 

*  ii.  1.  29,  30. 

6  In  the  Visigothic  code  the  observance  of  the  Sunday  and  of  holydays 
i«  appointed  by  law.  The  holydays  were  fifteen  at  Easter,  seven  before, 
seven  after.  The  Nativity,  Circumcision,  Epiphany,  Pentecost,  Ascension, 
and  certain  days  at  harvest  and  vintage  time. 


CHAP.  V.  TEUTONIC  KINGS  AND  LAWS.  519 

tion  of  the  Franks,  lately  converted  to  the  saiic  law. 
Catholic  faith,  and  even  while  yet  barbarians  untainted 
with  heresy.  In  a  later  sentence  it  boasts  that  it  has 
enshrined  in  gold  and  precious  stones  the  relics  of  those 
martyrs  whom  the  Romans  burned  with  fire,  slew  with 
the  sword,  or  cast  to  the  wild  beasts.1  But  it  is  the 
law  of  the  King  and  the  nobles :  the  bishops  are  not 
named,  perhaps  because  as  yet  the  higher  clergy  were 
still  of  Roman  descent. 

Still,  however  the  Teutonic  kings  and  Teutonic  leg- 
islators at  first  perhaps  in  their  character  of  conquerors, 
assumed  supreme  dominion  over  the  Church  as  well  as 
over  the  State,  and  the  subject  bishops  bowed  before 
the  irresistible  authority.  St.  Remigius  violated  a  can- 
on of  the  Church  on  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  at 
the  command  of  Clovis.2  Among  the  successors  of 
Clovis  no  bishop  was  appointed  without  the  sanction 
of  the  Crown.3  Theodoric,  son  of  Clovis,  commanded 
the  elevation  of  St.  Nicetius  to  the  see  of  Treves.4 
The  royal  power  was  shown  in  the  shameless  sale  of 
bishoprics.5  The  nomination  or  the  assent  of  the 
clergy  and  the  people  was  implied  in  the  theory  of  the 
election,  but  often  overborne  by  the  awe  of  the  royal 
authority.6  The  Council  of  Orleans,  which  condemned 

1  Apud  Canciani,  vol.  ii.  see  p.  370. 

2  "  Scribitis  canonicum  non  fuisse  quod  jussit Praesul  regionum, 

custos  patriae,  gentium  triumphator  illud  injunxit." — Epist.  S.  Remigii; 
Bouquet  iv.  p.  52. 

8  Planck,  ii.  114.    A.D.  529. 

4  "  Eum  ad  episcopatum  jussit  accersiri."  —  Gr.  Tur. 

6  "  Jam  tune  germen  illud  iniquum  cceperat  fructificare,  ut  sacerdotium 
aut  venderetur  a  regibus,  aut  compararetur  a  clericis."  — Greg.  Tur.  Vit 
Pair.  vi.  3. 

6  "  Ut  nulli  episcopatum  prsemiis  aut  comparatione  liceat  adipisci :  sed 
cum  vobmtate  regis  juxta  electionem  cleri  ac  plebis,"  &c.  A.D.  549.  ConciL 
Can.  10 


520  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

the  sale  of  bishoprics,  fully  acknowledged  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  royal  will.  A  few  years  later  a  Council  at 
Paris  endeavored  to  throw  off  the  yoke.  It  declared 
the  election  to  be  in  the  clergy  and  the  people.  It  dis- 
claimed the  royal  mandate,  and  condemned  the  bishop 
who  should  dare  to  obtain  ordination  through  the  King 
to  be  excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  the  bishops  of  the 
province.1  But  the  fierce  Frankish  sovereigns,  while 
they  appeared  to  accede  to  these  pretensions,  tramp- 
led them  under  foot.  The  right  seems  to  follow  them 
in  their  career  of  conquest.  Dalmatius,  Bishop  of 
Rhodez,  in  his  last  will,  besought  the  King,  under  the 
most  terrible  adjurations,  not  to  grant  his  office  to  a 
foreigner,  a  covetous  person,  or  a  married  man.2  In 
562  a  synod,  held  under  Leontius,  Archbishop  of 
Bordeaux,  deposed  the  Bishop  Emerius,  as  consecrated 
by  a  decree  of  King  Chlotaire  without  his  sanction. 
When  the  new  Bishop  Herculius  presented  himself  at 
Paris,  "  What ! "  exclaimed  King  Charibert,  "  do  men 
think  that  there  is  no  son  of  Chlotaire  to  maintain  his 
father's  decrees,  that  ye  dare  to  degrade  a  bishop  ap- 
pointed by  his  will  ?  "  He  ordered  the  rash  intruder 
to  be  thrown  into  a  cart  strewn  with  thorns,  and  so 
sent  into  banishment ;  the  Bishop  Emerius  to  be  rein- 
stated by  holy  men.3  He  fined  the  synod.  The  royal 

1  "  Xullus  civibus  invitis  ordinetur  episcopus,  nisi  quern  populi  et  cleri- 
corum  electio  plenissima  qusesierit  voluntate.     Nonprincipit  imperio,  neque 
per  quamlibet  conditionem,  contra  metropolis  voluntatein  vel  episcoporum 
provincialium  ingeratur.    Quod  si  per  ordinatumem  reginm  honoris  i~tius 
culmen  pervadere  aliquis  nimia  temeritate  praesumpserit,  a  comprovinciali- 
bus  loci  ipsius  episcopus  recipi  nullatenus  mereatur,  quern  indebite  ordina- 
tum  agnoscunt." — Can.  viii. 

2  Gregor.  Tur.  v.  47. 

8  Gregor.  Tur.  iv.  26.    Loebel  observes  that  Gregory,  from  his  expres- 
sion, "Et  sic  principis  ultus  est  injuriam,"  thought  the  king  in  the  right. 


CHAP.  Y.  AMENABILITY  OF  THE  CLERGY.  521 

prerogative  was  perpetually  asserted  down  at  least  to 
the  time  of  Charlemagne.1 

In  the  Gothic  kingdom  of  Spain,  so  long  as  it  was 
Arian,  the  kings  interfered  not  in  the  appointment  of 
bishops.  Their  orthodox  successors  left,  it  should  seem, 
affairs  to  take  their  own  course.2  But  towards  the 
close  of  the  seventh  century  the  Council  of  Toledo 
acknowledged  the  King  as  invested  with  the  right  of 
electing  bishops.3  Ecclesiastical  synods  were  only  held 
by  royal  permission.  Their  decrees  required  the  royal 
sanction.4  This  theory  may  be  traced  through  the  nu- 
merous synods  for  ecclesiastical  purposes  in  Gaul,  be- 
tween the  conquest  and  the  close  of  the  sixth  century.6 
In  Spain  the  custom  appears  distinctly  recognized  even 
under  Arian  kings.6 

As  under  the  Roman  law  no  one  could  elude  civil 
office  by  retreating  into  holy  orders.  No  decurion 
could  be  ordained  without  special  permission.  No  free- 
man could  be  ordained  in  the  Barbaric  kingdoms  with- 

1  See  instances  in  Loebel.    King  Guntran,  in  584,  rejected  (it  seemed  an 
extraordinary  case)  gifts  for  episcopal  appointments.    "Non  est  principatus 
nostri  consuetude  sacerdotium  venundare  sub  pretio,  sed  nee  vestrum  cum 
prsemiis  comparare :  ne  et  nos  turpis  lucri  infamia  notemur,  et  vos  mago 
Simoni  comparemini."  —  Greg.  Tur.  vi.  39. 

2  Pope  Hilarius  laid  before  a  synod  at  Rome  a  letter  of  the  Tarragonian 
bishops  complaining  that  in  the  other  provinces  of  Spain  episcopal  elections 
had  ceased.    The  bishop  nominated  his  successor  hi  his  testament.  —  Baron, 
sub  ann.  466. 

8  "  Quod  regiffi  potestatis  sit  episcopos  eligere." 

4  Planck,  ch.  ii.  p.  125;  from  511  to  590,  were  held  twenty-one  Gallic 
synods :  most  of  them  have  permission  "  gloriosissimi  regis,"  or  some  such 
phrase. 

5  Planck,  note,  page  130. 

6  King  Theudes,  in  531,  permits  the  orthodox  bishops  "  in  Toledanam 
orbem  convenire,  et  qu»cunque  ad  ecclesiasticam  disciplinam  pertinerent 
licere,  licenterque  dicere." — Isid.  in  Chron.  ad  A.D.  531. 


522  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

out  the  consent  of  the  king,  because  thereby  the  king 
lost  his  military  service.1 

Below  the  sovereign  power  the  people  maintained 
the  right  of  the  joint  election  of  bishops  with  the 
clergy.  This  old  Christian  usage  would  fall  in  with 
the  Teutonic  habits.  As  the  Teutons  raised  their  king 
upon  the  buckler,  and  proclaimed  him  with  the  assent  of 
the  freemen  of  the  tribe,  so  the  acclamation  of  the  peo- 
ple ratified  or  anticipated  the  nomination  of  the  bishop.2 

The  clergy  enjoyed  no  immunity  from  the  laws  of 
the  land.3  In  criminal  cases  two  successive  Councils, 
at  Macon  and  at  Poictiers,4  acknowledged  that  for  all 
criminal  offences,  as  homicide,  robbery,  witchcraft,  to 
which  the  latter  adds  adultery,  they  were  amenable  to 
the  civil  jurisdiction.5  At  a  later  period  the  presence 
of  the  bishop  was  declared  necessary.6  If  indeed  the 
awe  of  the  clergy  might  repress,  or  the  obstinate  claim 
to  immunity  embarrass,  the  ordinary  judge,  the  royal 
authority  was  neither  limited  by  fear  nor  scruple.7  Nu- 

1  Cone.  Aurelian.  A.D.  511,  can.  6.  confirmed  by  a  capitulary,  A.D.  805. 1. 
c.  114.— Marculf.  i.  19.  —  Praceptum  de  Clericatu.  —  Planck,  159. 

2  For  the  usage  under  the  Roman  dominion  in  Gaul,  from  the  earlies 
period  to  the  fifth  century,  see  Raynouard,  Histoire  du  Droit  Municipal  ec 
France,  i.  ch.  xxvi.    It  continued  to  the  twelfth  century. 

8  The  appeal  of  the  clergy  to  the  civil  courts  for  the  redress  of  ecclesias- 
tical grievances  was  strictly  forbidden.  —  Concil.  Tolet.  iii.  13.  Cone.  Paris. 
A.D.  589.  c.  13.  Council  under  St.  Recared,  enacted,  "  Ne  amplius  liceat 
clericis  conclericos  suos  relicto  Pontifice  ad  judicia  secularia  pertrahere."  — 
A.D.  589.  c.  13. 

*  Concil.  Matiscon.  A.D.  581.    Concil.  Pictav. 

8  According  to  Gregory  of  Tours,  Count  Leudastes  of  Tours  had,  almost 
every  day,  when  he  sat  injustice,  priests  brought  before  him  in  chains.  — 
Lib.  v.  c.  49. 

•  Capit.  i.  23. 

1  At  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  the  civil  authorities  in  Spain  took 
upon  them  to  enforce  clerical  continence.  They  visited  the  houses  of  the 
clergy,  and  took  out  all  suspicious  females.  With  the  consent  of  the  bishops, 


CHAP.  V.  AMENABILITY  OF  THE  CLERGY.  523 

merous  instances  occur  of  bishops  treated  with  the  most 
cruel  indignity  by  the  fierce  Frankish  sovereigns'  for 
real  or  imputed  crimes.1  At  times  indeed  they  sub- 
mitted to  the  tardier  process  of  a  previous  condemna- 
tion by  an  ecclesiastical  synod.  Praetextatus,  Bishop 
of  Rouen,  was  accused  by  King  Chilperic  as  an  accom- 
plice in  the  rebellion  of  his  son,  before  a  synod  in 
Paris.  Prsetextatus  was  in  danger  of  being  dragged 
from  the  church  and  stoned  by  the  Franks.  The  bish- 
ops were  prepared  to  utter  the  ban.  But  his  defence 
was  undertaken  by  the  historian,  Gregory  of  Tours. 
Neither  fear  nor  bribery  could  deter  the  intrepid  advo- 
cate from  maintaining  the  innocence  of  the  bishop.2 
When  the  King  could  not  obtain  his  condemnation,3 

O  7 

either  the  tearing  his  holy  vesture,  or  the  imprecation 
of  the  108th  Psalm  against  him,  or  even  his  exclusion 
from  Christian  communion,  Pra3textatus  was  suddenly 
hurried  away  to  prison ;  on  his  attempt  to  escape, 
grievously  beaten  and  sent  into  exile.4  This  transac- 
tion, notwithstanding  its  melancholy  close,  shows  some 
growing  respect  for  ecclesiastical  tribunals  in  cases  even 
of  high  treason.  The  Spanish  kings  threaten  bishops 
•with  royal  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  censure.5 

There  were  appeals  from  ecclesiastical  synods  to  the 
Crown ;  in  some  cases  the  royal  authority  interposed 

who  seem  to  have  approved  of  this  procedure,  they  might  seize  the  women 
as  slaves.  —  Concil.  Hispal.  3. 

1  Greg.  Tor.  vi.  24. 

2  "  Ducentas  argenti  libras  promisit,  si  Praetextatus,  me  impugnanta 
opprimeretur." 

8  Gregory  himself  admits  the  supremacy  of  the  king  over  the  clergy. 
"Si  quis  de  nobis,  o  rex,  justitia  tramitem  transcendere  voluerit  a  te 
corrigi  potest;  si  vero  tu  excesseris,  quis  te  corripiet?  " 

*  Greg.  Tur.  v.  18. 

«  Planck,  ii.  188. 


524  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH 

to    mitigate    or    to   relieve   from   ecclesiastical  penal- 
ties'1 

But  there  is  a  strong  converse  to  this  subjection  of 
the  Church  to  the  power  of  the  King  or  the  nobility. 
Already  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries,  the  bishops 
appear  in  all  the  great  assemblies  of  the  people.2  They 
have  a  voice  in  the  election  of  the  King;  before  long, 
his  coronation  becomes  a  religious  ceremony.  It  was 
not,  according  to  one  theory,  that  they  succeeded  the 
Druids  of  Gaul  and  the  Teutonic  priests  in  their  dig- 
nity (the  Druids  and  their  religion  had  long  ceased  to 
maintain  any  influence,  the  German  priests  do  not 
appear  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  great  warlike  mi- 
grations of  the  tribes),  nor  that  the  bishops  claimed 
the  privilege  of  all  free  Franks  to  give  their  suffrage  in 
the  popular  assembly.  There  were  few  of  these  regu- 
lar parliaments ;  they  were  rather  great  councils  sum- 
moned by  the  king.  The  position  of  the  Bishops, 
their  influence  with  the  people,  their  rank  in  public 
estimation,  their  superior  intelligence,  designated  them 
as  useful  members  of  such  council.  The  later  Gothic 
kings  of  Spain  felt  even  more  awe  of  the  clergy  :  they 
had  been  rescued  by  their  zeal,  not  merely  from  the 
terrible  retribution  which  awaited  heathenism,  but 
from  that  of  heresy.  Their  conversion  to  orthodoxy 
showed  the  power  which  the  Latin  clergy  had  obtained 
over  their  minds ;  and  they  would  hasten  to  lay  the 

1  See  the  curious  Hist  of  the  Royal  nuns  (Greg.  Tur.  x.  20),  and  the  ex- 
communication of  Archbishop  Sisibert  of  Toledo:  "  Ut  in  fine  vit«  tantum 
communionem  accipiat,  excepto,  si  regia  pietas  antea  eum  absolvendum 
crediderit."  —  A.D.  693.  Planck,  p.  194. 

*  According  to  Eichhom,  the  first  manifest  "  Concilium  mixtum  "  was  in 
A.D.  615.  From  this  emanated  the  constitutions  of  Chlotaire  H.  which 
recognized  the  temporal  powers  of  the  hierarchy.  —  i.  p.  520. 


CHAP.  V.  EPISCOPAL  AUTHORITY.  525 

first  fruits  of  their  gratitude,  submission,  and  reverence, 
at  the  feet  of  the  clergy.  Nor  were  the  affairs  discussed 
at  these  great  councils  strictly  defined.  There  was  no 
distinct  line  between  civil  and  religious  matters.  This 
distinction  belongs  to  a  later  period  of  civilization. 
The  clergy  were  not  unwilling  to  obtain  the  royal  or 
the  national  assent  to  their  spiritual  decrees.  The  king 
naturally  desired  the  intelligence,  the  love  of  order, 
the  authority,  the  influence  of  the  clergy,  to  ratify  his 
civil  edicts.  The  reciprocal  rights  of  each  party  had 
been  as  yet  too  little  contested  to  awaken  that  sensitive 
jealousy  of  interference  which  grew  up  out  of  centuries 
of  mutual  aggression. 

But  if  in  the  great  public  assemblies  the  bishops  had 
already  taken  this  rank,  each  in  his  city  held  an  au- 
thority partly  recognized  by  law,  partly  resting  on  the 
general  awe  and  reverence.1  As  in  the  East,  the  bishop 
had  a  general  superintendence  over  the  courts  of  law. 
He  had,  if  not  always  the  presidential,  a  seat  in  the 
judicial  tribunal.2  He  was,  if  not  by  statute,  by  uni- 
versal recognition,  what  the  defensor  had  been  in  the 
old  municipal  system,  only  with  all  the  increased  influ- 
ence of  his  religious  character.  To  him  the  injured 
party  could  appeal  in  default  of  justice.  He  was  the 
patron,  the  advocate  of  the  poor.  He  had  power  to 
punish  subordinate  judges  for  injustice  in  the  absence  of 
the  king.  In  Spain  the  Bishops  had  a  special  charge  to 
keep  continual  watch  over  the  administration  of  justice,8 

1  So  King  Chlotaire  ordained.  —  Greg.  Tur.  vi.  31. 

2  On  the  residence  of  the  bishops  in  the  cities,  its  effect  on  the  great 
increase  in  the  power  of  the  bishop,  and  on  the  freedom  of  the  cities,  com- 
pare Thierry.  —  R^cits.  Me"rovingiens,  i.  266. 

8  "Ex  decreto  domini  regis  —  simul  cum  sacerdotali  concilio  conveniant 
ut  discant  quam  pie  et  juste  cum  populis  agere  debeant."  — Concil.  Tolet. 
iii.  38. 


526  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IIL 

and  were  summoned  on  all  great  occasions  to  instruct 
the  judges  to  act  with  piety  and  justice.1 

Thus  the  clergy  stood  between  the  two  hostile  races 
in  the  new  constitution  of  society  —  the  reconcilers, 
the  pacifiers,  the  harmonizers  of  the  hostile  elements. 
They  were  Latin  in  general  in  descent,  in  language, 
yet  comprehending  both  races  under  their  authority 
and  influence ;  admitted  to  the  councils  of  the  Kings, 
and  equal  to  the  count  or  the  noble  in  estimation ; 
controlling  one  race  by  awe,  looked  up  to  by  the  other 
as  their  natural  protectors ;  opposing  brute  force  by 
moral  and  religious  influences  ;  supplying  the  impo- 
tency  of  the  barbaric  law  to  restrain  oppression  and 
iniquity  (where  every  injury  or  crime  had  its  commu- 
tative fine)  by  the  dread  of  the  religious  interdict  and 
the  fears  of  hell ;  stooping  unconsciously  to  the  super- 
stition of  the  times,  but  ruling  more  powerfully  through 
that  superstition.  They  were  the  guardians  and  pro- 
tectors of  the  conquered,  of  the  servile  classes,  whose 
condition  was  growing  worse  and  worse,  against  the 
privileged  freemen ;  enduring,  mitigating,  when  they 
could  not  control,  the  wild  crimes  of  t lie  different  petty 
kings,  who  were  constantly  severing  into  fragments  the 
great  Prankish  monarchy,  and  warring,  intriguing, 
assassinating  for  each  fragment.  The  Bishops  during 
all  that  period,  in  Spain,  in  France,  in  Italy  —  making 
every  allowance  for  the  legendary  and  almost  adoring 
tone  in  which  their  histories  have  descended  to  us  — 
appear  as  the  sole  representatives  of  law,  order,  and 

1  "  Sint  prospectore*  episcopi  qualiter  judices  cum  populis  aj*ant,  ut  ipsoa 
pr.-vmoiiitos  corrigant,  aut  insolentiam  eorum  principum  aurilm.*  iniiottscant. 
Quod  si  correptos  emendate  nequiverint,  et  ab  ecclesia  et  a  communion* 
lospendant." —  Ibid.:  compare  Leg.  Visigoth,  ii.  1,  29,  30;  Synod.  Tolet 
A.D.  633,  can.  32. 


CHAP.  V.  RIGHTS  OF  PERSONS.  527 

justice,  as  well  as  of  Christian  virtue  and  humanity. 
There  is  even  a  cessation  of  religious  persecution,  ex- 
cept against  the  Jews.  After  the  extinction  of  Arian- 
ism,  the  human  mind  had  sunk  into  such  inactivity  and 
barrenness  that  it  did  not  even  produce  a  new  heresy. 
Except  the  peculiar  opinions  of  Felix  and  Elipandus, 
and  those  of  Adelbert  and  Clement  in  Gaul,  down  to 
the  time  when  the  monk  Gotschalk  started  the  question 
of  predestination,  the  West  slumbered  in  unreasoning 
orthodoxy. 

A.  The  Barbaric  codes,  like  the  Roman,  recognized 
slavery  as  an  ordinary  condition  of  mankind.1 
Man  was  still  a  marketable  commodity.  The 
captive  in  war  became  a  slave ;  and  it  was  hap-  baric 
py  for  mankind  that  he  became  so,  otherwise  the  wars 
which  swept  over  the  whole  world,  civilized  and  un- 
civilized, must  have  been  wars  of  massacre  and  exter- 
mination. The  victory  of  Stilicho  over  Rhadagaisus 
threw  200,000  Goths  or  other  Germans  into  the  market, 
and  lowered  the  price  of  a  slave  from  twenty-five  pieces  of 
gold  to  one.2  The  well-known  story  of  the  Anglo-Sax- 
on youths  who  excited  the  compassion  of  Pope  Grego- 
ry I.  shows  that  in  his  time  the  public  sale  of  slaves  was 
still  common  in  Rome.  The  redemption  of  captives  — 
that  is  the  repurchase  of  slaves  in  order  to  restore  them  to 
freedom  —  is  esteemed  an  act  of  piety  in  the  West  as  in 
the  East.  The  first  prohibition  of  this  traffic,  both  by 
law  and  by  public  sentiment,  was  confined  to  the  sale 

l  The  church  lived  according  to  the  Roman  law:  "  Legem  Romanam  qui 
ecclesia  vivit."  —  Eichhom,  i.  297.  In  the  Ripuarian  law  the  wehrgeld  of 
the  clergyman  was  at  first  according  to  his  birth,  "  Servus  ut  servum ; " 
•fterwards  according  to  his  ecclesiastical  rank.  —  Ibid. 

*  Orosius.  vii.  37. 


528  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH. 

of  Christians  to  pagans,  Jews,  and  in  some  cases  to 
heretics.  The  Jews  were  the  great  slave-merchants  of 
the  age.1  But  it  was  the  religion  rather  than  the  per- 
sonal freedom  which  was  taken  under  the  protection  of 
the  law.  The  capture  and  sale  of  men  was  part  of  the 
piratical  system  along  all  the  shores  of  Europe,  espe- 
cially on  the  northern  coasts.  The  sale  of  pagan 
prisoners  of  war  was  authorized  by  Clovis  after  the 
defeat  of  the  Alemanni ;  by  Charlemagne  after  that  of 
the  Saxons ;  by  Henry  the  Fowler,  as  to  that  unhappy 
race  which  gave  their  name  to  the  class  —  the  Slaves.2 

The  barbarian  codes  seem  to  acknowledge  the  le- 
MarrUges  of  g^ty  °^  marriages  between  slaves,  and  their 
religious  sanctity ;  that  of  the  Lombards  on 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptural  sentence,  "  Whom  God 
hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put  asunder."  All 
unlawful  connection  with  married  or  unmarried  slaves 
is  forbidden.8  The  slave  who  detected  his  wife  in  adul- 
tery might,  like  the  freeman,  kill  the  two  criminals.4 
Still,  however,  they  were  slaves.  The  law  interfered 
to  prohibit  marriages  between  the  slaves  of  different 
masters.  If  the  marriage  took  place  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  master,  the  slave  was  punishable,  by  the 
Salic  law,  either  by  a  mulct  of  threepence,  or  was 
to  receive  a  hundred  stripes.  The  later  laws  became 
more  lenient,  and  divided  the  offspring  between  the 
two  masters. 

The  barbarian  codes  were  as  severe  as  the  Roman  in 
prohibiting  the  debasing  alliance  of  the  freeman  with 

1  Hist,  of  Jews,  iii. 

*  Compare  Biot,  p.  185,  De  1' Abolition  de  1'Esclavage  ancien  en  Occident 
Paris,  1840. 

*  Lex  Salic,  tit.  xxviiL 
4  Lex  Salic,  xxviii.  5. 


CHAP.  V.  MARRIAGE  OF  PREEMEX  AND  SLAVES.     529 

the  slave.  The  Salic  and  Ripuarian  law  Marriage  of 
condemned  the  freeman  guilty  of  this  degra-  siaTS6" 
dation  to  slavery  ; l  where  the  union  was  between  a 
free- woman  and  a  slave,  that  of  the  Lombards2  and 
that  of  the  Burgundians 3  condemned  both  parties 
to  death  ;  but  if  her  parents  refused  to  put  her  to 
death,  she  became  the  slave  of  the  crown.  The 
Ripuarian  law  condemned  the  female  delinquent  to 
slavery ;  but  the  woman  had  the  alternative  of  killing 
her  base-born  husband.  She  was  offered  a  distaff  and 
a  sword.  If  she  chose  the  distaff,  she  became  a  slave ; 
if  the  sword,  she  struck  it  to  the  heart  of  her  para- 
mour, and  emancipated  herself  from  her  degrading  con- 
nection.4 The  Visigothic  law  condemned  the  female 
who  had  connection  with  or  wished  to  many  her  own 
slave,  or  even  a  fieedman,  to  death.5  For  the  same 
offence  with  the  slave  of  another,  both  were  punished 
with  a  hundred  stripes.  For  the  fourth  offence  the 
woman  became  the  handmaid  of  the  slave's  master. 
The  Saxon  law  still  more  sternly  interdicted  all  mar- 
riages below  the  proper  rank,  whether  of  nobles,  free 
men,  or  slaves,  under  pain  of  death.  The  laws  of  the 
Lombards  and  of  the  Alemanni  were  more  mild.  The 
latter  allowed  the  female  to  separate  from  her  slave 
husband  on  certain  conditions,  if  she  had  not  degraded 
herself  by  any  servile  occupation.6 

1  Lex  Sal.  xxix.  v.  3 :  Lex  Ripuar.  Iviii.  9. 

2  ccxxii. 

«  Tit.  xxxv.  2. 

4  Lex  Ripuar.  Iviii.  18. 

5  Lex  Visigoth,  iii.  ii.  2. 

«  Adam.  Brem..  Hist.  Eccles.  i.  5.    By  the  Bavarian  law,  a  slave  commit- 
ting fornication  with  a  free-woman  was  to  be  given  up,  to  be  put  to  death 
if  they  pleased,  to  the  parents,  and  not  to  pay  any  mulct:    "  quia  talis  pr»- 
sumptio  excitat  inimicitias  in  populo."  — ii.  be.. 
VOL.  I.  3-t 


530  LATIN   CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

Under  the  barbarian  as  under  the  Roman  law,  the 
slave  was  protected  chiefly  as  the  property  of  his  mas- 
ter. All  injury  or  damage  was  done  to  the  thing 
rather  than  the  person,  and  was  to  be  paid  for  by  a 
mulct  to  the  owner,  not  a  compensation  to  the  sufferer.1 
By  the  edict  of  Theodoric,  he  who  killed  the  slave  of 
another  might  be  prosecuted  for  homicide,  or  sued  by  a 
civil  process  for  the  delivery  of  two  slaves  in  place  of 
the  one  killed.2  But  slaves  bore  the  penalty  of  their 
own  offences,  and  even  of  those  of  their  masters.  If 
guilty  of  acts  of  violence,  though  under  their  masters' 
orders,  they  suffered  death.3  The  slave  was  not  to  be 
tortured,  except  to  prove  the  guilt  of  his  master,  un- 
less the  informer  would  pay  the  master  his  value.  If 
bought  in  order  to  suppress  his  evidence,  he  might  be 
repurchased  at  the  same  price,  and  put  to  the  torture.4 
The  right -of  life  and  death  still  subsisted  in  the  master. 
According  to  some  of  the  barbaric  codes,  here  retro- 
grading from  the  Roman,  he  had  full  power  to  make 
away  with  his  own  property.  This  usage,  noticed  by 
Tacitus  as  common  to  the  German  tribes,  continued  to 

1  In  the  Burgundian  law,  the  murder  of  a  slave  is  only  punished  by  a 
fine,  according  to  his  value.*    The  humaner  Visigothic  code  distinctly  pro- 
hibited the  murder  of  a  slave.     The  punishment  was  fine  and  infamy.     An- 
other law  recognized  the  image  of  God  in  the  slave,  and  therefore  inter- 
dicted his  mutilation. 

2  The  Burgundian  law  shows  that  the  artisans  in  the  mingled  Roman  and 
barbarian  society  were  chiefly  slaves.    "  Quicunque  vero  eervuin  suum  au- 
rificem,  argentarium,  ferrarium,  fabrum  serarium,  sartorem  vel  sutorem,  in 
publico  adtributum  artificium  exercere  permiserit,"  &c.  — Tit.  xxi. 

*  Art.  Ixxvii. 

4  Art.  c.  ci.  By  the  Bavarian  law,  if  a  slave  was  unjustly  put  to  the  tor- 
ture, the  false  accuser  of  the  slave  was  to  give  another  slave  to  the  master 
If  the  slave  died  under  torture,  two.t 

*  Tit.  x.;  Legen  Visigoth,  vl.  v.  12;  Law  of  Egi<;a,  yi.  v.  13. 
t  Tit.  Yiii.  18,  1,  2:  compare  Burgundian  law,  Tit.  rii. 


CHAP.  V.  EMANCIPATION  OF  SLAVES.  531 

the  Capitularies  of  Charlemagne.  That  code  adopts 
the  Mosaic  provisions.1  Under  Lewis  the  Debonnaire 
and  Lothaire,  the  arbitrary  murder  of  a  slave  was  pun- 
ished by  excommunication  or  two  years'  penance.2 

The  runaway  slave  was  the  outcast  of  society.  At 
first  he  was  denied  the  privilege  of  asylum.3  It  was  a 
crime  to  conceal  him ;  he  might  be  seized  anywhere ; 
punished  by  his  master  according  to  his  will ;  and 
according  to  some  codes  he  might  be  slain  in  case  of 
resistance.  The  influence  of  the  Church  appears 
in  some  singular  and  contradictory  provisions.4  The 
Churches  themselves  were  slaveholders.5  There  were 
special  provisions  to  protect  their  slaves.  By  the  law 
of  the  Alemanni,  whoever  concealed  an  ecclesiastic's 
slave  was  condemned  to  a  triple  fine.6  In  the  Bava- 
rian law,  whoever  incited  the  slave  of  a  church  or  a 
monastery  to  flight,  must  pay  a  mulct  of  fifteen  solidi, 
and  restore  the  slave  or  replace  him  by  another.  The 
Church  gradually  claimed  the  right  of  asylum  for  fugi- 
tive slaves.  The  slave  who  had  taken  refuge  at  the 
altar  was  to  be  restored  to  his  master  only  on  his 
promise  of  remitting  the  punishment.7 

As  under  the  Roman  law,  peculiar  solemnity  at- 
tached to  the  emancipation  of  the  slave  in  the  church 


1  Exod.  xxi.  20,  21. 

2  Dachery,  Spicileg.  Addit.  ad  Cap.  c.  49;  Biot,  p.  286 
8  Edict.  Theodor.  Ixx. ;  Leg.  Longobard.  cclxxxii. 

<  Lex  Salica;  Lex  Ripuar,xiv. 

6  "  Non  v'  era  anticamente  Signor  Secolare,  Vescovo,  Abbate,  Capitolo 
di  Canonici,  e  Monastero,  che  non  avesse  al  suo  servigio  mold  servi.' 
Manumission  was  more  rare  among  the  clergy  than  among  secular  masters, 
because  it  was  an  alienation  of  the  property  of  the  church.  —  Muratori,  Ant 
ftaliane,  Diss.  xv. 

6  Lex  Alemann.  3. 

1  Concil.  Aurelian. :  compare  the  Visigothic  law,  ix.  1,  de  fagitivis. 


532  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III 

and  before  the  priest ;  and  emancipation  thus  became 
an  act  of  piety.  So  in  some  of  the  Teutonic  co<: 
in  the  Visigothic,  emancipation  before  the  parish  priest 
was  an  ordinary  act  recognized  by  the  law.  It  wa<  a 
common  form  that  it  was  done  by  the  pious  man  for  the 
remedy  or  the  ransom  of  his  soul.1 

Easter  was  usually  the  appointed  time  for  this  public 
manumission  in  the  churches ;  and  no  doubt  the  glad 
influences  of  that  holy  season  awoke  the  disposition  and 
the  emulation,  in  many  Christian  minds,  of  conferring 
the  blessing  of  freedom  upon  their  slaves. 

Gregory  the  Great  seems  to  have  been  the  first  who 
enfranchised  slaves  on  the  pure  and  noble  principle  of 
the  common  equality  of  mankind. 

But  the  great  change  in  the  condition  of  the  servile 
order  arose  chiefly  from  other  causes,  besides  the  influ- 
ence of  Christianity.  This  benign  influence  operated 
no  doubt  in  these  indirect  ways  to  a  great  extent,  first 
on  the  mitigation,  afterwards  on  the  abolition  of  domes- 
tic slavery;  but  it  was  perhaps  the  multiplication  of 
slaves  which  to  a  certain  extent  slowly  wrought  its 
own  remedy.  The  new  relations  of  the  different  races 

•/ 

consequent  on  the  barbaric  conquests,  the  habits  of  the 
Teutonic  tribes  settled  within  the  Empire,  the  attach- 
ment of  the  rural  or  praedial  slave  to  the  soil,  the 
change  of  the  slave  into  the  serf,  which  became  uni- 
versal in  Europe,  tended  in  different  ways  to  the 
general  though  tardy  emancipation.  The  serf  was 
immovable  as  the  soil :  he  became  as  it  were  part  of  it, 

1  Leges  Visigoth,  v.  vii. :  compare  note  of  Canciani,  and  the  loth  Dis- 
sertation of  Muratori.  This  began  early  both  in  East  and  West.  "  Sen-urn 
tuum  manumittendum  manu  ducis  in  ecclesiam.  Fit  silentium.  Libellus 
tune  reciUtur,  aut  fit  desiderii  tui  prosecutio."  —  S.  August.  Serra.  xxxi. 
U  was  done  pro  remedio,  or  pro  mercede  anima?  BUS. 


CHAP.  V.  BURGUXDIAN  LAW  OF  DIVORCE.  533 

and  so  in  some  degree  beyond  the  caprice  or  despotism 
of  his  master.  Already  under  the  Empire,  the  sys- 
tem of  taxation  had  affixed  the  peasant  to  the  soil :  the 
owner  paid  according  to  the  number  of  heads  of  slaves, 
as  he  might  of  cattle.  Whether  the  cultivators  were 
originally  born  on  the  estate  ascribed  to  them,  or  set- 
tled upon  it,  they  were  equally  irremovable.  No  one 
could  sell  his  estate,  and  transfer  the  slaves  to  another 
property.  The  estates  of  the  Church  were  no  doubt, 
as  they  yet  enjoyed  no  immunity  of  taxation,  subject 
to  the  same  laws.  It  may  be  generally  said  that  the 
whole  cultivation  of  the  Roman  empire  was  conducted, 
if  not  by  slaves,  by  those  whose  condition  did  not  really 
differ  from  slavery.  The  emancipation  began  at  a  pe- 
riod in  the  Christian  history,  centuries  later  than  that 
at  which  we  are  arrived  at  present.1 

The  barbaric  codes,  as  well  as  the  edict  of  Theod- 
oric,2  retained  the  high  Teutonic  reverence  for  the 
sanctity  of  marriage.  In  the  Burgundian  law,  adultery 
was  punishable  by  death.3  In  all  cases  it  rendered  the 
woman  infamous.  A  widow  guilty  of  incontinency 
could  not  marry  again  —  at  least  could  not  receive 
dower.  In  the  Visigothic  code  the  adulteress  and  her 
paramour  were  given  up  to  the  injured  husband,  to  be 
punished  according  to  his  will :  he  might  put  them  to 
death.4  The  law  of  divorce  under  the  Burgundian  law 

1  Tit.  xl.-xlviii.:  compare  the  Justinian  code  "De  agricolis  et  censitis 
et  colonis."    Law  of  Constantius,  i.  —  Law  of  Valentinian  and  Valens. 
"Omnes  omnino  fugitives  adscriptitios,  colonos  vel  inquilinos,  sine  ullo 
sexus,  muneris  conditionisque  discrimine  ad  antiques  penates,  ubi  censiti 
itque  educati  natique  sunt,  provinciis  prsesidentes  redire  compellant."     On 
the  change  of  the  slave  into  the  serf  in  the  Carlovingian  times,  compare 
Lahuerou,  Institutions  Carlovingiennes,  page  204  et  ieq. 

2  See  above. 

8  Tit.  Ixviii.  and  Hi. 

4  Leges  Visigoth,  iii.  iv.  14  et  seq. 


534  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  m. 

was  Roman,  excepting  that  the  woman  who  divorced 
her  husband  without  cause,  according  to  an  old  German 
usage  as  to  infamous  persons,  was  smothered  in  mud.1 
Among  the  Visigoths,  divorce  was  forbidden,  except- 
ing for  adultery.  Incest,  by  the  Visigothic  law,  was 
extended  to  the  sixth  degree  of  relationship.  Rape  was 
punished  by  confiscation  of  property,  or  failing  that,  by 
reduction  to  slavery.2  This  code  contained  a  severe 
statute  against  public  prostitutes,  rendering  them  liable 
to  whipping.  Incontinence  in  priests  was  corrected  by 
penance  ;  the  woman  was  to  be  whipped.  The  former 
statute  was  in  that  stern  tone  towards  unchastity  which 
in  the  Goths  Salvian  contrasts  with  the  impurity  of 
Roman  manners.3  The  later  laws  seem  gradually  to 
soften  off  into  mulcts  or  compositions  for  these  as  for 
other  crimes. 

But  among  the  yet  un-Romanized  Saxons,  down  to 
the  days  of  St.  Boniface,  the  maiden  who  has  dishonor- 
ed her  father's  house,  or  the  adulteress,  is  compelled  to 
hang  herself,  is  burned,  and  her  paramour  hung  over  the 
blazing  pile ; 4  or  she  is  scourged  or  cut  to  pieces  with 
knives  by  all  the  women  of  the  village  till  she  is  dead. 

1  Necetur  in  Into,  xxxiv.  1.    "  Ignavos  et  imbelles  et  corpore  infames 
cceno  ac  palude  injecta  super  crate,  mergunt."  —  Tacit.  Germ.  c.  xii. 

2  Tit.  iii.  vi.    Unnatural  crimes  were  punished  by  castration.    By  the 
Bavarian  law,  whoever  took  away  a  nun  to  marry  her  committed  adultery. 
"  Scimus  ilium  crimini  obnoxium  esse  qui  alienam  sponsam  rapit.  quanto 
magis  ille  obnoxius  est  criinini  qui  Christi  usurpavit  sponsam."  —  xii.  1. 

*  iii.  iv.  17.    "  Esse  inter  Gothos  non  licet  scortatorem  Gothum,  soli  inter 
eos  praejudicio  nationis  ac  nominis  permittuntur  impuri  esse  Romani."  — 
Salvian.de  Gub.  Dei.  vii.    Lahuerou,  however,  observes:  "Voyez  quelle 
^norme  disproportion  la  loi  met  entre  les  obligations  et  les  devoirs  des 
deux  e"poux!    Le  man  peut  §tre  infidele  autant  de  fois  et  a  tel  degre" 
qu'il  le  voudra,  sans  que  la  femme  ait  le  droit  de  s'en  plaindre."     The  Ger- 
man woman  was  in  fact,  though  in  a  less  degree  than  the  Roman,  the  prop- 
erty of  her  husband.  —  Lahuerou,  Institutions  Carlovingiennes,  p.  38. 

*  A.D.  743.    Bonifac.  Epist.  ad  Ethelbal.  Reg.  Mercia. 


CHAP.  V.  LAW  OF  PROPERTY.  535 

B.  In  the  barbaric  as  in  the  Roman  code,  the  law 
of  property  might  seem  enacted  with  the  special 
view  of  securing  to  the  Church  wealth  which  ^vof  prop. 
could  not  but  be  constantly  accumulating,  erty- 
and  could  never  diminish.  Every  freeman  might 
leave  his  property  to  the  Church.  No  duke  or  count 
had  a  right  to  interfere.  The  heir  who  ventured  to 
reclaim  such  dedicated  property  was  liable  to  the  judg- 
ment of  God  and  to  excommunication,  recognized  in 

o 

more  than  one  code.1  The  freeman  might  retain  to 
himself  and  so  enjoy  the  usufruct  during  his  own  life, 
and  leave  his  heirs  beggars.  The  proofs  of  such  dona- 
tions were  all  to  the  advantage  of  the  Church.  The 

O 

barbaric  codes  left  the  clergy  to  secure  the  inalienabili- 
ty of  their  property  by  their  own  laws.  At  first,  and 
until  the  bishop  began  to  be  merged  in  the  temporal 
feudatory,  it  was  comparatively  safe  in  its  own  sanctity. 
In  the  division  of  the  conquered  lands  by  the  barba- 
rians, the  Church  estates  remained  sacred.  The  new 
converts  could  not  show  their  sincerity  better  than  by 
their  prodigality  to  the  Church.  Clovis  and  his  first 
successors,  ignorant  of  the  value  of  their  new  acquisi- 
tions, awarded  large  tracts  of  land  with  a  word.  St. 
Remigius  received  a  great  number  of  lands  to  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  destitute  churches.  Their  successors 
complained  of  this  thoughtless  prodigality.  Already 
they  had  discovered  that  the  royal  revenues  had  been 
transferred  to  the  Church.2  The  whole  Teutonic  law, 
which  appointed  certain  compensations  for  certain 
srimes,  would  have  suggested,  had  suggestion  been  nec- 

1  Lex  Alemann.  et  Lex  Burgund.,  in  initio. 

2  "  Ecce,  aiebat  Rex,  pauper  remansit  fiscus  noster,  et  divitiae  nostrae  ad 
jcclesias  sunt  translatae."  —  Greg.  Tur.  vi.  46. 


536  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

essaiy,  the  commutation  system  of  the  Church.  God, 
like  the  freeman  or  the  King,  might  be  propitiated  by 
the  wehrgeld;  the  penance  of  the  Christian  be  con 
sated  by  a  pecuniary  mulct.  Already  Queen  Fivde- 
gunde  satisfies  the  conscience  of  two  hesitating  murder- 
ers whom  she  would  employ  to  assassinate  her  brother- 
in-law,  King  Sigebert,  by  the  promise  of  large  alms  to 
the  Church,  in  order  to  secure  them  from  hell  or  pur- 
gatory.1 So  rapidly  and  alarmingly  was  the  Church  in 
France  becoming  rich,  that  King  Chilperic  passed  a  law 
annulling  all  testaments  in  which  the  Church  was  con- 
stituted heir ;  but  Gunthran,  not  long  after,  repealed 
the  sacrilegious  statute,  and  these  murderous  and  adul- 
terous and  barbarous  kings  and  nobles  were  again  ena- 
bled to  die  in  peace,  confident  in  the  remission  of  their 
sins  by  the  sacrifice  of  some  portion  of  their  plunder 
(the  larger  the  offering  the  more  secure)  on  the  altar 
of  God.2 

But  the  barbarous  times  which  bestowed  so  lavishly 
were  by  no  means  disposed  superstitiously  to  respect  the 
property  of  the  Church.  It  was  often  but  late  in  life  that 
the  access  of  devotion  came  on,  while  through  all  the 
former  part,  either  by  right  of  conquest,  by  terror,  or 
by  bribery,  the  barbarian  had  not  scrupled  to  seize  back 
consecrated  land.  Even  kings  were  obliged  to  ratify 
and  solemnize  their  own  grants  by  synods  or  by  nation- 
al assemblies.8  The  deepening  of  the  imprecations  ut- 


1  Gesta  Francorum.    Planck,  ii.  199. 

2  All  the  laws  acknowledged  the  right  of  alienating  some  portion  from 
the  rightful  heir,  "pro  remedio  animse,"  or  "in  remissionem  peccatorum." 
There  are  legal  formula:  in  Marculf  to  this  effect.     Some  codes,  however, 
prohibited  the  absolute  disinheritance  of  the  right  heir  for  the  good  of  the 
church.     Eichhorn,  p.  359:  compare  363  etseq. 

*  In  a  synod  at  Valence,  King  Gunthran  demanded  the  ratification  of 


CHAP.  V.  BAEBARIC  CRDHXAL  LAW.  537 

tered  by  these  synods  against  robbers  of  the  Church 
shows  their  necessity.  These  lands  began  to  be  guarded 
by  all  the  terrors  of  superstition ;  wild  legends  every- 
where spread  of  the  awful  and  miraculous  punishments 
which  had  fallen  on  such  offenders.1  In  a  few  centu- 
ries the  deliverer  of  Europe  from  the  Mahommedan 
yoke,  Charles  Martel,  was  plunged  into  hell,  and  re- 
vealed in  his  torments  to  the  eyes  of  men,  as  a  standing 
and  awful  witness  to  the  inexpiable  sin  of  sacrilege. 

The  property  of  the  Church  as  yet  enjoyed  no  im- 
munity from  taxation.  Gradually  special  exemptions 
were  granted.  At  length  the  manse  of  the  church  (a 
certain  small  farm  or  estate)  was  entirely  relieved  from 
the  demands  of  the  state.  Even  the  claim  to  absolute 
freedom  from  contribution  to  the  public  expenses  was  of 
a  much  later  period.2 

C.  The  criminal  law  of  the  barbaric  codes  tended 
more  and  more  to  the  commutation  of  crime  or  criminai  Uw 
injury  for  a  pecuniary  mulct.  High  treason  of  barbarian»- 
alone,  compassing  the  death  of  the  King,  corresponding 
with  the  enemies  of  the  realm,  or  introducing  them 
within  its  frontier,  was  generally  a  capital  crime.  Yet 
in  the  Visigothic  code  the  capital  punishment  of  treason 
could  be  commuted  for  putting  out  the  eyes, 
shaving  the  hair,  scourging,  perpetual  impris- 
onment,  or  exile,  with  confiscation  and  attainder,  and  in 

all  the  gifts  which  he,  his  wife,  and  daughters  had  bestowed  on  the  church. 
All  plunderers  of  this  property  "anathemate  perpetui  judicii  divini  plec- 
tendi  atque  supplicii  aeterni  obnoxii  tenendi  sunt."  King  Dagobert 
confirmed  his  legacies  in  a  parliament,  the  legacies  which  he  had  be- 
queathed "memor  malorum  quae  gesserit." —  Planck,  203. 

1  Gregory  of  Tours  is  full  of  such  tales. 

2  Planck,  ii.  ch.  vii.    King  Chlotaire,  in  540,  demanded  a  third  part  of 
the  revenue  of  the  church  as  an  extraordinary  loan.  —  Greg.  Tur.  iv.  2. 


538  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  EL 

this  case  the  criminal  could  not  make  over  his  property 
to  the  Church.1  Such  donations  were  void.  But  of 
all  crimes  the  King  had  power  of  pardon  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  clergy  and  the  great  officers  of  his  palace. 
The  Bavarian  law  adds  sedition  in  the  camp  to  acts  of 
treason,  but  even  this  might  be  forgiven  by  the  royal 
mercy.2  As  to  other  crimes,  except  adultery  and  in- 
cest, it  was  Teutonic  usage,  not  Christian  humanity, 
which  abrogated  the  punishment  of  death.  In  the  Bur- 
gundian  law  homicide  is  still  a  capital  crime  ;  but  grad- 
ually the  life  of  every  man  below  the  King  is  assessed, 
according  to  his  rank,  at  a  certain  value,  and  the  wehr- 
geld  may  be  received  in  atonement  for  his  blood.3 
Even  the  sacred  persons  of  the  clergy  had  their  price, 
which  rises  in  proportionate  amount  with  their  power 
and  influence.  By  the  Bavarian  law,  should  any  one 
kill  a  bishop  lawfully  chosen,4  a  tunic  of  lead  was  to  be 
fitted  to  the  person  of  the  bishop,  and  the  commutation 
for  his  murder  was  as  much  gold  as  that  tunic  weighed : 
if  the  gold  was  not  to  be  had,  the  same  value  in  money, 
slaves,  houses,  or  land ;  if  the  offender  had  none  of 
these,  he  was  sold  into  slavery.  Nor  was  it  life  only 
which  was  thus  valued ;  every  wound  and  mutilation  ot 
each  particular  member  of  the  body  was  carefully  regis- 
tered in  the  code,  and  estimated  according  as  the  man 
was  noble,  freeman,  slave,  or  in  holy  orders.  The  slave 
alone  was  still  h'able  to  capital  punishment  for  certain 


l  Lex  Visigoth,  vi.  1,  2. 

*  "  Et  Hie  homo  qui  hsec  commisit  benignmn  impntet  regem  aut  ducem  si 
ei  vitam  concesserit."  — Lex  Bavar.  ii.  iv.  3. 

8  Parricide  alone,  by  the  Visigothic  law,  was  punished  by  the  same  death 
as  that  inflicted. 

*  "  Si  quis  episcopum  quern  constituit  rex,  vel  populus  elegit."  —  Lex 
Bavar.  xi.  1. 


CHAP.  V.  THE  CHURCH  AN  ASYLUM.  539 

offences  j1  the  Visigothic  code  condemned  him  to  be 
burned.2  Torture  was  not  only,  according  to  Roman 
usage,  to  be  applied  to  slaves,  but  even  to  freemen  in 
certain  cases.3 

The  privilege  of  asylum  within  the  Church  is  recog- 
nized in  most  of  the  barbaric  codes.4  It  is  asserted  in 
the  strongest  terms,  and  in  terms  impregnated  with  true 
Christian  humanity,  that  there  is  no  crime  which  may 
not  be  pardoned  from  the  fear  of  God  and  reverence  foi 
the  saints.5  As  yet  perhaps  the  awe  of  the  Christian 
altar  only  arrested  justice  in  its  too  hasty  and  vindictive 
march,  and  in  these  wild  times  gave  at  least  a  tempo- 
rary respite,  for  the  innocent  victim  to  obtain  liberty 
that  he  might  plead  his  cause  against  the  fierce  popu- 
lace or  the  exasperated  ruler,  for  the  man  of  doubtful 
guilt  to  obtain  a  fair  trial,  or  for  the  real  criminal  to 
suffer  only  the  legal  punishment  for  his  offence.  As 
yet  the  priest  could  not  shield  the  heinous  criminal. 
By  the  Visigothic  code  he  was  compelled  to  surrender 
the  homicide.6  With  the  ruder  barbarians  the  sanctity 
of  holy  places  came  in  aid  of  the  sacerdotal  authority ; 
and  in  those  savage  times  no  doubt  the  notion  that  it 

O 

was  treason  against  God  to  force  even  the  most  flagrant 
criminal  from  his  altar,  protected  many  innocent  lives, 
and  retarded  the  precipitancy  even  of  justice  itself.7 

1  Or  scourging,  for  theft,  by  the  Burgundian  law.  —  iv.  2. 

a  Lex  Visigoth,  iii.  iv.  14. 

8  Lex  Visigoth,  vi.  1,  2,  ii.  iv.  4. 

4  On  the  subject  of  asylum,  compare  the  excellent  dissertation  of  Paolo 
Sarpi,  De  jure  Asylorum.  —  Opera,  iv.  p.  191. 

6  "  Nulla  sit  culpa  tarn  gravis,  ut  non  remittatur,  propter  timorem  Dei  et 
reverentiam  sanctorum."  —  Lex  Barar.  vii.  3.  It  was  an  axiom  of  the  Ro- 
wan law,  "  Templorum  cautela  non  nocentibus  sed  laesis  datur  a  lege."  — 
Justin.  Novell,  xvii.  7. 

6  Lex  Visigoth,  vi.  v.  18. 

*  See  Greg.  Tur.  vii.  19 ;  iv.  18. 


540  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

The  right  was  constantly  infringed  by  violent  kings  or 
rulers,  but  rarely  without  strong  remonstrance  from  the 
clergy ;  and  terrible  legends  were  spread  abroad  of  the 
awful  punishments  which  befell  the  violators  of  the 
sanctuary1. 

Already,  in  the  earliest  codes,  appears  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  justice  by  appeal  to 
arms,  and  to  the  judgment  of  God:  even  the  Bur- 
gundian  law  admits  the  trial  by  battle.2 

The  ordeal  is  a  superstition  of  all  nations  and  of 
all  ao-es.  God  is  summoned  to  bear  miraculous  witness 

O 

in  favor  of  the  innocent,  to  condemn  the  guilty.8  The 
Ripuarian  law  admits  the  trial  by  fire,4  the  Visigothic 
by  redhot  iron.6  The  Church,  at  a  later  period,  took 
the  ordeal  under  its  especial  sanction.  There  was  a 
solemn  ritual  for  the  ceremony.6  It  took  place  in  the 
church.  The  scalding  water,  the  redhot  iron,  or  the 
ploughshare  were  placed  hi  the  porch  of  the  church 

i  Restrictions  were  placed  on  this  undefined  right  In  a  capitular  of  779 
—  "  Homicidae  et  caetc-ri  rei,  qui  mori  debent  legibus,  si  ad  ecclesiam  con- 
fugerint,  non  ezcusentur,  neque  eis  ibidem  victus  detur." 

«Titxlv. 

*  Compare  Calmet  and  Grotius  on  Numbers  v.  31,  for  the  instances  from 
classical  antiquity.    Pliny  and  Solinus  mention  two  rivers,  which  either  by 
scalding  or  blinding,  detected  perjury.  —  H.  N.  xxxi.  cap.  xviii.  2. 

rHfl£V  ff  ETOLfUM  KOl  pWpOVf  alpftV  XtpWV, 
KOI  TTVp  6dp-£lV,  Kai  tfeOVf  OpKUflOTtlv, 

rb  fajTE  ipaaai,  fa/rc  ry  fyveiAevai 

rd  irpdyfia  fiovfavoavTi  (Ofr'  elpyaafiivu. 

SophocL  Antig.  264 
"  Et  medium  freti  pietate  per  ignem 
Cultores  multft  premiums  Testigia  prunl." 

Virg  JEneid.  xi.  787. 

*  Tit  xxx. 

6  Lex  Visigoth,  ri.  1,  3.     See  the  very  curious  note  of  Canciani,  and 
quotation  from  the  Constitutions  of  Baeca  on  this  passage. 
«  See  the  very  remarkable  ritual  in  Canciani,  ii.  453. 


CHAP.  V.  THE  ORDEAL.  541 

and  sprinkled  with  holy-water.  All  the  most  awful 
mysteries  of  religion  were  celebrated  to  give  greater 
terror  and  solemnity  to  the  rite.  Invention  was  taxed 
to  discover  new  forms  of  appeal  to  the  Deity ;  swear- 
ing on  the  Gospels,  on  the  altar,  on  the  relics,  on  the 
host;  plunging  into  a  pool  of  cold  water,  he  who 
swam  was  guilty,  he  who  sunk  innocent ;  they  were 
usually  held  by  a  cord.  There  were  ordeals  by  hot 
water,  by  hot  iron,  by  walking  over  live  coals  or  burn- 
ing ploughshares.1  This  seems  to  have  been  the  more 
august  ceremony  for  queens  and  empresses  —  under- 
gone by  one  of  Charlemagne's  wives,  our  own  Queen 
Emma,  the  Empress  Cunegunda.  The  ordeal  went 
down  to  a  more  homely  test,  the  being  able  to  swallow 
consecrated  bread  and  cheese. 

The  new  crimes  which  the  Christianity  of  these  ages 
had  introduced  into  the  penal  code  of  the  Empire  found 
their  place  in  the  barbaric  codes.  At  first,  indeed, 
they  were  left  to  the  cognizance  of  the  clergy,  and  to 
be  visited  by  ecclesiastical  penalties.  The  Arianism 
of  the  primitive  Teutonic  converts  compelled  the  toler- 
ation of  the  laws,  and  retained  a  kind  of  dread  of 
touching  on  such  subjects  in  the  earlier  codes ;  but  in 
proportion  as  the  ecclesiastics  became  co-legislators, 


i  The  ordeal  was  condemned  in  later  days  by  many  popes  as  tempting 
God:  by  Alexander  IT.,  Stephen  X.,  Honorius  III.  Muratori  thought  that 
it  was  abolished  in  the  twelfth  century.  Canciani  quotes  later  instances. 
That  of  Savonarola,  a  real  ordeal,  might  suffice.  Even  Canciani  seems  to 
look  back  upon  it  with  some  lingering  respect :  "  Ego  reor  Deo  Opt.  Max. 
ilns  placuisse  majorum  nostrorum  simplicitatem  et  fidem  quam  recentio- 
rum  sapientum  acutissimam  philosophiam." — Vol.  ii.  p.  293.  Greg.  Tu- 
ron.  de  Martyr.  69,  70.  All  the  ritualists,  Martene,  Mabillon,  Ducange, 
under  the  different  words,  Muratori  in  two  dissertations,  one  on  the  ordeal, 
one  on  duel,  furnish  ample  citations.  Almost  all,  however,  are  later  than 
hese  primitive  barbaric  laws. 


542  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

heresies  became  civil  crimes,  and  liable  to  civil  punish- 
ments.1 The  statutes  of  the  orthodox  Visigothic  kings, 
so  terrible  against  the  Jews,  were  not  more  merciful  to 
heretics.  The  Franks  were  from  the  first  the  army  of 
orthodoxy ;  heretics  were  traitors  to  the  state,  as  well 
as  rebels  against  the  Church,  confederates  of  hostile 
Visigoths,  or  Burgundians,  or  Lombards. 

Witchcraft  was  a  crime  condemned  by  the  Visi- 
gothic law.2  Its  overt  acts  were  causing  storms,  invo- 
cation of  demons,  offering  nightly  sacrifices  to  devils. 
The  punishment  was  200  stripes,  and  shaving  the 
head.  Consulting  soothsayers  concerning  the  death 
of  the  King  was  punished  in  a  freeman  by  stripes  and 
confiscation  of  property,  and  perpetual  servitude  :  wiz- 
ards guilty  of  poisoning  suffered  death. 

III.  But  external  to  and  independent  of  the  Im- 
perial Law  and  the  constitutions  of  the  new  western 
kingdoms  was  growing  up  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
Church,  commensurate  with  the  Roman  world,  or 
rather  with  Christendom.  Every  inhabitant  of  the 
Christian  empire,  or  of  a  Christian  kingdom,  \vas  sub- 
ject to  this  second  jurisdiction,  which  even  by  the 
sentence  of  outlawry  which  it  pronounced  against 
heretics,  assumed  a  certain  dominion  over  those  who 
vainly  endeavored  to  emancipate  themselves  from  its 
yoke.  The  Church  as  little  admitted  the  right  of  sects 
to  separate  existence,  as  the  empire  would  endure  the 
establishment  of  independent  kingdoms  or  republics 
within  its  actual  pale.  Of  this  peculiar  jurisprudence 
of  the  Church  the  clergy  were  at  once  the  legislature 

1  Laws  of  Recared,  xii.  2, 1. 

8  Lex  Visigoth,  vi.  2,  3.    There  was  a  singular  provision  against  judges 
consulting  diviners  in  order  to  detect  witches. 


CHAP.  V.          ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.  543 

and  the  executive.  This  double  power  tended  more 
and  more  to  concentration.  In  the  State  all  power 
resided  in  the  Emperor  alone ;  the  unity  of  the  empire 
under  a  monarch  inevitably  tended  to  that  of  the 
Church  under  one  visible  head.  As  the  clergy  more 
and  more  withdrew  itself  into  a  privileged  order,  so 
the  bishops  withdrew  from  the  clergy,  the  Metropoli- 
tans rose  above  the  bishops,  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
aspired  to  supreme  and  sole  spiritual  empire.  Had 
Rome  remained  the  capital  of  the  whole  world,  the 
despotism,  however  it  might  have  suffered  a  perpetual 
collision  with  the  imperial  power,  ruling  in  the  Eternal 
City,  would  probably  have  become,  as  far  as  ecclesias- 
tical dignity,  an  acknowledged  autocracy.  A  people 
habituated  for  centuries  to  arbitrary  authority  in  civil 
affairs  would  be  less  likely  to  question  it  in  religion. 
The  original  independence  of  the  Christian  character 
which  induced  the  first  converts  in  the  strength  of 
their  faith  to  secede  from  the  manners  and  usages  as 
well  as  the  religious  rites  of  the  world,  to  form  self- 
governed  republics,  as  it  were,  within  the  social  system 
—  this  noble  liberty  had  died  away  as  Christianity 
became  a  hereditary,  an  established,  an  universal  re- 
ligion. Obedience  to  authority  was  inveterate  in  the 
Roman  mind ;  reverence  for  law  had  sunk  into  obedience 
to  despotic  power ;  arbitrary  rule  seemed  the  natural 
condition  of  mankind.  This  unrepining,  unmurmur- 
ing servility  could  not  be  goaded  by  intolerable  taxation 
to  resistance.  Nothing  less  than  religious  difference 
could  stir  the  mind  into  oppugnancy,  and  this  differ- 
ence was  chiefly  concentred  in  the  clergy:  when  a 
heretic  was  in  power  the  orthodox,  when  the  orthodox 
the  heretic,  alone  asserted  liberty  of  action  or  of 


544  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  III. 

thought.  In  all  other  respects  the  law  of  the  Church, 
as  enacted  by  the  clergy,  was  received  with  implicit 
submission.  In  the  provinces,  as  the  Presidents,  or 
Prefects,  or  Counts,  in  their  regular  gradation  of  dig- 
nity, ruled  with  despotic  sway,  yet  were  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  remote  and  supreme  central  power,  so 
the  Bishops,  Metropolitans,  Patriarchs  rose  above  each 
other,  and  culminated,  as  it  were,  to  some  distant  point 
of  unity.  The  Patriarchates  had  been  fixed  in  the 
greatest  cities  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  These 
were  the  seats  likewise  of  the  highest  provincial  govern- 
ments ;  the  other  chief  provincial  cities  were  usually 
the  seats  of  local  administration,  and  of  the  metropolitan 
sees  ;  and  so  the  stream  of  public  business,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  was  perpetually  flowing  to  the  same 
centre.  It  was  at  once  the  place  at  which  all  that  re- 
mained, the  shadow,  as  it  were,  of  the  old  popular 
assemblies,  as  well  as  the  ecclesiastical  synods,  were 
convened ;  appeals  came  thither  from  all  quarters, 
imperial  mandates  were  issued  to  the  province  or 
theme.  On  this  principle  Constantinople  continued 
still  to  rise  in  influence ;  Alexandria  for  above  a  cen- 
tury resisted,  but  resisted  in  vain,  the  advancement  uf 
the  upstart  unapostolic  See.  The  new  Rome  asserted 
her  Roman  dignity  against  the  East,  while  on  every 
favorable  opportunity  she  raised  up  claims  to  indepen- 
dence, to  equality,  even  to  superiority,  against  the  elder 
Rome,  now  a  provincial  city  of  the  Justinian  empire. 

Rome  was  the  sole  Patriarchate  of  the  West,  the 
head  and  centre  of  Latin  Christianity.  Rome  stood 
alone,  almost  without  rival  or  reclamation.  Raven- 
na, as  the  seat  of  empire  under  the  exarchs,  might 
aspire  to  independence,  to  equality;  her  pretensions 


CHAP.  V.  ROME  THE  CENTRAL  POWER.  545 

were  soon  pnt  down  by  her  own  impotence  and  by 
common  opinion.  Wherever  the  Latin  language  was 
spoken  there  was  no  rival  to  the  supremacy  of  Rome. 
The  African  churches,  distracted  by  the  Donatists, 
oppressed  and  persecuted  by  the  Arian  Vandals,  re- 
vived but  as  the  churches  of  a  province  of  the  Eastern 
empire.  -Carthage  was  still  one  of  the  great  cities  of 
the  world,  her  bishop  the  acknowledged  head  of  the 
churches  in  Africa.  But  the  African  Church,  though 
obedient  to  the  East,  after  Justinian's  conquest,  and 
just  emerging  into  ascendency  over  the  Arians,  had 
neither  ambition  nor  strength  to  assert  independence. 
Of  the  Teutonic  kingdoms  founded  within  the  ancient 
realm  of  Rome,  three  had  been  destroyed  during  the 
sixth  century,  those  of  the  Ostrogoths  in  Italy,  of  the 
Vandals  in  Africa,  of  the  Burgundians  in  France. 
Of  the  four  which  survived,  the  Lombard  was  still 
Arian,  the  Anglo-Saxon  was  heathen  and  not  yet  con- 
solidated into  one  kingdom  ;  those  of  the  Visigoths  in 
Spain  and  of  the  Franks  in  Gaul,  if  still  of  uncertain 
boundaries,  and  frequently  subdivided  in  different  pro- 
portions, accepted  the  supremacy  of  Rome  as  part  of 
the  Catholicism  to  which  one  had  returned  after  a  long 
apostacy,  with  all  the  blind  and  ardent  zeal  of  a  new 
proselyte;  the  other,  whose  war-cry  of  conquest  had 
been  the  Catholic  faith,  would  bow  down  in  awe-struck 
adoration  before  the  head  of  that  faith.  The  Latin 
clergy,  who  had  made  common  cause  with  the  Franks, 
would  inculcate  this  awe  as  the  most  powerful  auxil- 
iary to  their  own  dominion. 

In  the  West  the  state  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  tended 
constantly  to  elevate  the  actual  power  of  the  single 
Patriarchate.  The  election  of  the  bishops  in  the  Ro- 

VOL.  i.  35 


546  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  m. 

man  provinces  and  in  the  new  Teutonic  kingdoms  was 
in  the  clergy  and  the  people.  Strife  constantly  arose ; 
the  worsted  party  looked  abroad  for  aid  ;  if  they  found 
it  not  with  the  Metropolitan,  they  sought  still  further  ; 
and  as  the  provincial  of  old  appealed  to  Rome  against 
the  tyranny  of  the  civil  governor,  so  the  clergy  against 
the  bishop,  the  bishop  against  the  Metropolitan.  They 
fled  in  the  last  resort  to  what  might  seem  to  be  an  im- 
partial, at  least  might  be  a  favorable  tribunal. 

But  throughout  these  kingdoms  there  was  another 
The  ciergy  strong  bond  to  Rome  —  the  common  interest 
I*tfn'  of  the  Latin  part  of  the  community  against 

the  foreign  and  Teutonic.  The  old  Roman  aristocracy 
of  the  provinces,  except  in  some  municipal  towns,  per- 
ished or  were  degraded  from  their  station  by  the  new 
military  aristocracy  of  the  conquerors.  But  the  clergy 
could  not  but  continue,  it  has  been  seen  that  they 
did  continue,  for  a  considerable  period  to  be  Roman. 
They  were  thus  a  kind  of  peaceful  force,  bound  to- 
gether by  common  descent,  and  still  looking  to  Rome 
as  their  parent.  Nothing  is  known  of  the  Arian  clergy 
who  accompanied  the  Goths,  the  Vandals,  or  the  Lom- 
bards, and  kept  up  the  tradition  of  the  heterodox  faith, 
whether  they  too  were  chiefly  Roman,  or  had  begun  to 
be  barbarian.1  The  rare  collisions  which  are  recorded, 
the  general  toleration,  except  among  the  Vandals  in 

1  In  the  CoIIatio  Episcoporum,  where  Avitus  of  Vienne  challenged  the 
Arian  clergy  to  bring  their  conflicting  doctrines  to  the  issue  of  a  public 
disputation,  the  head  of  the  Arian  clergy  is  named  Boniface.  The  Arians 
(it  is  a  Catholic  account)  were  struck  dumb,  or  replied  only  in  unmeaning 
clamors ;  one  sentence  alone  betrays  the  ground  they  took ;  they  stood  on 
the  Scripture  alone;  the  Catholics  were  pnestigiatores;  did  they  mean 
workers  of  false  miracles?  "Sufficere  sibi  se  habere  script uram,  quae  sit 
fortior  omnibus  praestigiia."  The  conference  was  in  the  year  419.  —  D'Ach- 
ery,  iii.  p.  304. 


CHAP.  V.  ROME  THE  CENTRAL  POWER.  547 

Africa,  might  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  the 
Teutonic  clergy  of  a  Teutonic  people,  each  contentedly 
worshipping  apart  from  each  other,  as  under  its  sepa- 
rate law,  so  under  its  separate  religion,  until  the  superior 
intelligence,  the  more  ardent  activity  of  the  orthodox 
Latins,  brought  over  first  the  kings  and  nobles,  as  Re- 
cared  in  Spain  and  the  later  Lombard  kings,  afterwards 
the  people,  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  toleration 
of  the  Arians,  and  even  writers  like  Orosius  admit  that 
in  Gaul  the  Goths  and  Burgundians  treated  the  ortho- 
dox Christians  as  brothers,  was,  after  all,  but  indiffer- 
ence, or  ignorance  that  there  was  another  form  of 
Christianity  besides  that  which  they  had  been  taught.1 
It  was  more  often  that  the  Catholics  provoked  than 
suffered  persecution  wantonly  inflicted.2  That  submis- 
sion which  the  Roman  paid  to  the  clergy  out  of  his 
innate  and  inveterate  deference  for  law,  if  not  from 
servility,  arose  in  the  Teuton  partly  from  his  inherent 
awe  of  the  sacerdotal  character,  partly  from  his  con- 
scious inferiority  in  intellectual  acquirements.3  No 
doubt  already  the  Latin  of  the  ordinary  Church  ser- 
vices had  become,  and  naturally  became  more  and 
more,  a  sacred  language.4  The  Gothic  version  of  the 

1  Orosius,  vii.  33.    There  was  a  kind  of  persecution  of  some  bishops  in 
Aquitaine.  —  Sidon.  Apoll.  vii.  6.    Modaharius  the  Goth,  a  citizen,  not  a 
clergyman,  is  named  by  Sidonius  —  The  name  sounds  like  Latinized  Teu- 
tonism.    Of  Euric,  Sidonius  says,  "  Pectori  suo  catholici  mentio  nominis 
acet."    At  this  time  the  bishoprics  of  Bordeaux  and  eight  others  were 
vacant,  no  clergy  ordained,  the  churches  in  ruins,  herds  pasturing  on  the 
grass-grown  altars. 

2  See  on  the  confederacy  of  the  orthodox  bishops  in  Burgundy  with  the 
Franks,  ch.  ii. 

8  Compare  Paullus  Diaconus  on  the  conversion  of  the  Lombards,  iv.  44. 

*  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  the  observations  of  a  modern  writer :  — 
"  Christianity  offered  itself,  and  was  accepted  by  the  German  tribes,  as  a  law 
ind  as  a  discipline,  as  an  ineffable,  incomprehensible  mvsterv.  Its  fruits 


648  LATIN    CHBISTTANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

Scriptures  was  probably  confined  to  that  branch  of  the 
nation  for  which  it  had  been  made  by  Ulphilas :  it  could 
not  have  been  disseminated  widely.  The  Latin  clergy, 
even  if  they  had  the  will,  could  not,  during  the  for- 
mation of  the  various  dialects  or  languages  which  grew 
up  in  Europe,  have  translated  the  sacred  books  or  the 
services  of  the  Church  into  the  ever-shifting  and  blend- 
ing dialects.  Till  languages  grew  up,  recognized  as 
their  own  by  nations,  there  could  be  no  claim  to  a  ver- 
nacular Bible  or  a  vernacular  Liturgy.  Latin  would 
establish  a  strong  prescription,  a  prescription,  in  fact, 
of  centuries ;  and  that,  as  on  the  one  hand  it  would 
tend  to  keep  the  clerical  office  chiefly  in  the  hands  of 
those  of  Latin  descent,  would  likewise  preserve  the 
unity  of  which  the  centre  was  Rome.1 

Rome  throughout  this  period  is  still  standing  in  more 
lonely  preeminence:  from  various  circumstances,  per- 
haps from  the  continually  shifting  boundaries  of  the 
kingdoms,  the  Metropolitan  power,  especially  in  Gaul, 
only  centuries  later,  if  ever,  assumed  its  full  weight. 
On  the  other  hand,  that  of  the  bishops  over  the  infe- 
rior clergy  became  throughout  the  western  kingdoms 
more  arbitrary  and  absolute.  The  bishop  stands  alone, 
the  companion  and  counsellor  of  kings  and  nobles,  the 

were,  righteousness  by  works  (Werkheiligkeit),  and  belief  in  the  dead 
word.  But  in  a  barbarous  people  it  is  an  immense  advance,  an  unappreci- 
able  benefit.  Ritual  observance  is  a  taming,  humiliating  process;  it  is 
submission  to  law;  it  is  the  acknowledgment  of  spiritual  inferiority;  it 
implies  self-subjection,  self-conquest,  self-sacrifice.  It  is  not  religion  in  its 
highest  sense,  but  it  is  the  preparation  for  it."  —  Bitter,  Geschich.,  Christ. 
Philos.  i.  p.  40. 

1  Planck  supposes  that  for  half  a  century  after  the  conversion  of  the 
Franks  the  bishops  were,  without  exception,  Latin;  about  566  appears  a 
Meroveus,  Bishop  of  Poitiers.— Greg.  Tor.  ix.  40;  Planck,  ii.  96.  In  the 
eighth  century  the  clergy  were  chiefly  from  the  servile  class.  —  p.  159. 


CHAP.  V.      GROWTH  OF  EPISCOPAL  PREEMINENCE.          649 

judge,  the  ruler ;  the  College  of  Presbyters,  the  ad- 
visers, the  coordinate  power  with  the  bishop,  has  en- 
tirely disappeared.  It  is  rarely  at  this  period  that 
we  discern  in  history  the  name  of  any  one  below  the 
episcopal  rank.  Even  in  the  legends  of  this  age  we 
scarcely  find  a  saint  who  is  not  a  bishop,  or  at  least, 
and  that  as  yet  but  rarely,  an  abbot.1  The  monas- 
teries at  first  claimed  no  exemption  from  the  episcopal 
autocracy :  they  aspired  not  yet  to  be  independent, 
self-governed  republics.  The  primitive  monks,  laymen 
in  every  respect,  would  have  shrunk  from  the  awful 
assertion  of  superiority  to  the  common  law  of  subjec- 
tion. The  earlier  councils  prohibited  the  foundation 
of  a  monastery,  even  of  a  solitary  cell,  without  the 
permission  of  the  bishop.  Gradually  monks  were  or- 
dained, that  the  communities  might  no  longer  depend 
for  the  services  of  religion  on  the  parochial  clergy ; 
but  this  infringement  on  the  profound  humility  of  the 
monk  was  beheld  with  jealousy  by  the  more  rigid.  St. 
Benedict  admits  it  with  reserve  and  caution.  It  was 
not  till  splendid  monasteries  were  founded  by  relig- 
iously prodigal  nobles,  kings,  and  even  prelates,  and 
endowed  with  ample  territories  and  revenues,  that 
they  were  withdrawn  from  the  universal  subordination, 
received  special  privileges  of  exemption,  became  free 
communities  under  the  protection  of  the  King,  or  of 
the  Pope.2  The  lower  clergy  were  in  fact  in  great 
numbers  ordained  slaves,  slaves  which  the  Church  did 
not  choose  at  hazard  from  the  general  servile  class, 
but  from  her  own  serfs,  and  who  were  thus  trained  to 

1  Planck,  ii.  368. 

2  Compare  M.  Guizot,  Civilisation  Moderne,  Lecon  XT.,  who  has  traced 
the  change,  and  cites  the  authorities  with  his  usual  sagacity  and  judgment. 


550  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI 

habits  of  homage  and  submission.  The  first  Franks  or 
Goths  who  entered  into  holy  orders  would  hardly  be 
tempted  by  a  less  prize,  or  stoop  to  a  lower  dignity, 
than  that  of  a  bishop,  except  as  far  as  it  might  be 
necessary  to  pass  rapidly  through  the  lower  orders. 
The  clergy  were  so  entirely  under  the  power  of  the 
bishop  that  a  Spanish  council  thinks  it  necessary 
and  seemly  to  secure  them  from  arbitrary  blows  and 
stripes.1 

The  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence,  therefore,  was  en- 
tirely, as  well  as  the  administration  of  the  law  in  its 
more  solemn  form,  in  the  bishops.  They  alone  at- 
tended  the  synods  or  councils,  they  alone  executed  the 
decrees.  Their  mandate  or  their  sanction  was  neces- 
sary for  every  important  act  of  religion. 

The  whole  penitential  system  was  under  their  con- 
trol and  rested  on  their  authority.  Private  confession 
might  be  received,  absolution  for  private  offences  be 
granted  by  the  priest :  public  or  notorious  crimes  could 
be  remitted  by  the  bishop  alone. 

This  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  had  its  specific  laws 
Penitential  as  ordinances  for  the  government  of  the  cler- 
gy ;  its  more  general  statutes,  which  em- 
braced all  mankind.  Every  man,  barbarian  or  Roman, 
under  whichever  civil  law  he  lived,  freeman  or  slave, 
was  amenable  to  this  code,  which  had  the  penitential 
system  for  its  secondary  punishment ;  excommunica- 
tion, which  in  general  belief,  if  the  excommunicated 
died  unreconciled,  was  tantamount  to  eternal  perdition, 
for  its  capital  punishment.  The  excommunication  as 

1 "  Ne  passim  unnsquisque  episcopus  honorabilia  membra  sua  presbyteros 
live  Levitas,  prout  voluerit  et  complacuerit,  verberibus  subjiciat  et  dolori." 
—  Syn.  Bracar.  iv.  A.D.  675,  can.  7. 


CHAP.  V.          DELINQUENCIES  OF  THE  CLERGY.  551 

yet  was  strictly  personal:  it  had  not  grown  into  the 
interdict  which  smote  a  nation  or  a  country. 

Of  this  twofold  law,  that  over  the  clergy  and 
that  over  the  laity,  the  administration  of  the  first  was 
absolutely  in  the  bishops — that  of  the  second  only 
more  remotely,  and  in  the  last  resort.  The  usual  pen- 
alties were  different.  The  sacred  person  of  the  priest 
had  peculiar  privations  and  penalties,  in  some  respects 
more  severe,  in  others  more  indulgent,  chastisements. 
The  attempt  to  reconcile  the  greater  heinousness  of  the 
offence  in  the  sinful  priest  with  the  respect  for  his 
order,  led  at  times  to  startling  injustice  and  contradic- 
tion.1 

The  delinquent  clerk  might  be  deprived  for  a  time 
of  his  power  of  administrating  sacred  things  ;  Delinquency 
he  might  be  thrown  back,  an  unworthy  and  of  the  clersr- 
a  despised  outcast,  into  the  common  herd  of  men,  or 
rather  lower  than  the  common  herd  (for  the  inefface- 
able ordination  held  him  still  in  its  trammels,  in  its  re- 
sponsibility, though  he  had  forfeited  its  distinctions  and 
its  privileges),  but  even  then  the  mercy  of  the  Church 
provided  courses  of  penance  more  or  less  long  and  aus- 
tere, by  which,  in  most  cases,  he  might  retrieve  the 
past,  and  rise,  to  some  at  least,  of  his  lost  prerogatives. 
The  monasteries,  in  later  times,  became  a  kind  of  penal 
settlements,  where  under  strict  provisions  the  exile 
might  expiate  his  offences,  work  ou|  the  redemption  of 
his  guilt,  if  not  permitted  to  return  to  the  world,  at 

i  Throughout  the  Penitentials,  the  penalties  are  heavier  on  the  clergy 
than  the  laity.  For  murder,  a  clerk  did  penance  for  ten  years,  three  on 
oread  and  water;  a  layman  three,  one  on  bread  and  water.  The  clergy 
too  were  punished  according  to  their  rank,  where  one  in  inferior  orders  has 
3ix,  a  deacon  has  seven,  a  priest  ten,  a  bishop  twelve  years  penance.— Mo- 
rinus. 


552  LATIX  CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  HI. 

least  die  in  peace ;  at  all  events  his  degradation  was 
concealed  from  a  babbling  and  censorious  world. 

The  law  administered  by  the  clergy,  throughout  the 
or  the  rest  Christian  polity,  comprehended  every  moral 

of  the  com-  .  .  L   .  „          J 

munity.  or  religious  act ;  and  what  act  or  man  could 
be  beyond  that  wide  and  undefined  boundary  ?  What- 
ever the  Church,  whatever  the  individual  clergyman, 
declared  to  be  sin  (the  appeal  even  to  the  bishop  was 
difficult  and  remote),  was  sin.  The  timid  conscience 
would  rarely  dare  to  judge  for  itself:  the  judge  there- 
fore was  at  once  the  legislator,  the  expounder  of  the 
law,  the  executioner  of  the  law.1 

This  law  had  its  capital  punishment  —  excommuni- 
cation, which  absolutely  deprived  of  spiritual  life.  Ex- 
communication, in  its  more  solemn  form,  was  rarely 
pronounced  by  lower  than  bishops.2  It  was  the  weapon 
with  which  rival  bishops  encountered  each  other,  which 
they  reserved  for  enemies  of  high  rank.  It  was  the 
sentence  of  Councils  only  which  cut  off  whole  sects 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church. 

But  excommunication  in  a  milder  form  —  the  tem- 
porary or  the  enduring  deprivation  of  those  means  of 
grace  without  which  salvation  was  hopeless,  the  refusal 
of  absolution,  the  key  which  alone  opened  the  gates  of 
heaven  —  was  in  the  power  of  every  priest :  on  his 
judgment,  on  his  decree,  hung  eternal  life,  eternal  death. 

lultaqne  postquam  crlminum  omnium  occultorum  po-na  quibiHihet 
presbyteris  concessa  est,  libelli  Poenitentiales  praeter  cannnes  conditi  sunt  in 
quibus  hsec  omnia  distincte  in  simpliciorum  presbyternnim  irratiam  ct  ne- 
cessariam  instructionem  enarrabantur,  ut  prtnitentiarum  Emponendarum 
officio  deftiti£i  possent." — Morinus.  This  work  of  Mnrinus  de  Prcnitentil 
affords  ample  and  accurate  knowledge  on  Jhe  history  of  the  Penitential 
law,  and  of  the  different  penitentials  which  prevailed  in  the  v 
churches. 

*  Public  penance  was  at  first  only  adjudged  by  the  bishops.  —  Sirmond- 
je  Poenit  Public. ;  Opera,  vol.  iv. 


CHAP.  V.  THE  PENITENTIALS.  553 

But  though  this,  like  all  despotic  irresponsible  power, 
or  power  against  which  the  mass  of  mankind  had  no 
refuge,  was  liable  to  abuse,  was  often  no  doubt  abused, 
it  was  still  constantly  counteracted  by  the  Penitentials 
which  as  wisely  (lest  men  should  break  the  yoke  in 
utter  despair)  as  mercifully,  were  provided  by  the  relig- 
ious code  of  Christianity.  The  Penitentials  were  part 
of  the  Christian  law ;  how  early  part  of  the  written 
law,  is  not  quite  clear ;  nor  were  they  uniform,  or  in 
fact  established  by  any  universal  or  central  authority  — 
that  of  Pope  or  Council ; l  but  they  were  not  the  less 
an  admitted  customary  or  common  law,  a  perpetual 
silent  control  on  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  individual 
priest,  a  guarantee  as  it  were  to  the  penitent,  that  if  he 
faithfully  submitted  to  the  appointed  discipline,  he 
could  not  be  denied  the  inappreciable  absolution.  The 
Penitentials  thus,  by  regulating  the  sacerdotal  power, 
confirmed  it ;  that  which  might  have  seemed  a  hard 
capricious  exaction  became  a  privilege ;  the  mercies  of 
the  law  were  indissolubly  bound  up  with  its  terrors. 
However  severe,  monastic ;  unchristian,  as  enjoining 
self-torture ;  degrading  to  human  nature,  as  substitut- 
ing ceremonial  observance  for  the  spirit  of  religion; 
debasing  instead  of  wisely  humiliating  ;  and  resting  in 
outward  forms  which  might  be  counted  and  calculated 
(so  many  hours  of  fasting,  so  many  blows  of  the 
scourge,  so  many  prayers,  so  many  pious  ejaculations, 
for  each  offence)  yet  as  enforcing,  it  might  be,  a  rude 
and  harsh  discipline,  it  was  still  a  moral  and  religious 
discipline.  It  may  have  been  a  low,  timid,  dependent 

1  The  three  oldest  were  the  Penitentials  of  Archbishop  Theodore  of  Can- 
terbury, of  Bede,  and  the  Roman.  That  of  Rabanus  Maurus  obtained  in 
Germany.  —  Mormus. 


554  LATIN    CHRISTIANITY.  BOOK  IH 

virtue  to  which  it  compelled  the  believer,  yet  still  vir- 
tue. It  was  a  perpetual  proclamation  of  the  holiness 
and  mercy  of  the  Gospel.  It  was  a  constant  preaching, 
on  one  hand,  it  might  be  of  an  unenlightened,  super- 
stitious Christianity,  but  still  of  Christianity.  Yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  was  a  recognition  of  a  divine  law, 
submission  to  a  religion  which  might  not  be  defied, 
which  would  not  be  eluded  —  a  religion  which  would 
not  deny  its  hopes  to  the  worst,  but  would  have  at  least 
resolutions,  promises  of  amendment  —  the  best  security 
which  it  could  obtain  —  from  the  unreasoning  and  fal- 
lible nature  of  man.  It  aspired  at  least  to  effect  that 
which  no  human  law  could  do,  which  baffled  alike  im- 
perial and  barbaric  legislation,  to  impose  constraint  on 
the  unchristian  passions  and  dispositions.  When  sacer- 
dotal religion  was,  if  not  necessary,  salutary  at  least  to 
mankind,  it  was  the  great  instrument  by  which  the 
priesthood  ruled  the  mind  of  man.  If  it  increased  the 
wealth  of  the  clergy,  it  was  wealth  much  of  which 
lawless  possessors,  spoilers,  robbers,  had  been  forced  to 
regorge.  If  it  invested  them  with  an  authority  as 
dangerous  to  themselves  as  to  the  world,  that  authority 
was  better  than  moral  anarchy.  However  adminis- 
tered, it  was  still  law,  and  Christian  law,  grounded  on 
the  eternal  principles  of  justice,  humanity,  and  truth.1 

1  It  will  hereafter  appear  in  our  History  how  the  penitential  system 
degenerated  into  commutations  for  penance  by  alms  (alms  being  only  part 
•>{  the  penance,  compensated  for  prayer),  fasting,  and  other  religious  observ- 
ances; alms  regulated  indeed  by  the  rank  and  wealth  of  the  transgressor, 
but  with  full  expiatory  value;  commutations  became  indulgences;  indul- 
gences, first  the  remission  of  certain  penitential  acts,  then  general  reinis-ions 
of  sins  for  definite  periods,  at  length  for  periods  almost  approximating  to 
eternity;  and  these  for  the  easiest  of  religious  duties,  visits  to  a  certain 
church,  above  all  ample  donations. 


END    OF    VOL.    I. 


Widdletorfs  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Works. 


MILMAN'S 

HISTORY   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

A    HANDSOME    LIBRARY    EDITION. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  From  the 
Birth  of  Christ  to  the  Abolition  of  Paganism  in  the  Roman 
Empire.  By  HENRY  HART  MILMAN,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  A 
New  Edition,  thoroughly  revised  and  corrected.  In  3  Vol- 
umes, crown  8vo.  In  large,  clear  type,  on  fine  paper.  Cloth, 
$5.25;  half  calf,  $10.50. 

This  standard  work  of  Milman,  after  having  been  before  the  world  for  a  quarter 
of  a  century,  and  having  for  that  period  sustained  the  test  of  criticism  and  received 


rts. 

These  topics,  of  great  interest  in  themselves,  are  rendered  more  interesting  and 
attractive  by  the  masterly  manner  in  which  they  are  treated. 

Uniform  -with  "History  of  Christianity" 

MILMAN'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWS.  From 
the  Earliest  Period  down  to  Modern  Times.  A  New  Edi- 
tion, thoroughly  revised  and  extended.  In  3  Volumes, 
crown  8vo.  Cloth,  extra,  $5.25;  half  calf,  $10.50. 

And 

MILMAN'S     HISTORY    OF    LATIN    CHRISTI- 

ANITY, including  that  of  the  Popes,  to  the  Pontificate  of 
Nicholas  V.  8  Vols.,  crown  8vo.  Cloth,  extra,  $14.00; 
half  calf,  $28.00. 

No  more  acceptable  present  to  a  clergyman  or  student  could 
be  made  than  a  set  of  Dean  Milman's  Works,  comprised  in  the 
above  14  volumes,  or  any  one  of  the  works  separately. 


For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country,  and 
mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  Price. 

W.   J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER, 

27  Howard  Street,  New  York. 


Widdletorfs  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Works. 


SINAI  AND   PALESTINE, 

BY  ARCHBISHOP  STANLEY, 

Author  of  the  History  of  the  Eastern  and  the  Jewish  Church, 

AND    UNIFORM    WITH    THOSE   VOLUMES. 

SINAI  AND  PALESTINE,  in  Connection  with  their 
History.  By  ARTHUR  PENRHYN  STANLEY,  D.D.  With 
Colored  Maps  and  Plates.  A  large  Octavo  Volume.  Ele- 
gantly printed  in  large,  clear  type,  on  fine  tinted  paper. 
Price,  in  cloth,  $4.00;  half  calf,  $6.00. 

Maps. 

I.  DIAGRAM  OF  THE  HEIGHTS    OF    EGYPT,   SINAI, 

AND  PALESTINE. 
II.  EGYPT. 

III.  PENINSULA  OF  SINAI. 

IV.  TRADITIONAL  SINAI. 
V.  PALESTINE. 

VI.  SOUTH  OF  PALESTINE. 
VII.  PLAIN  OF  ESDRAELON  AND  GALILEE. 

Wood-cuts. 

1.  SKETCH-MAP  OF  SYRIA. 

2.  SKETCH-PLAN  OF  JERUSALEM. 

3.  SKETCH-PLAN  OF  SHECHEM. 

4.  SKETCH-PLAN  OF  HOUSE  AT  NAZARETH  AND  AT 

LORETTO. 

"  Tho",e  who  visit  or  who  describe  the  scenes  of  sacred  history  expressly  for 
the  sake  of  finding  confirmations  of  Scripture,  are  often  tempted  to  mislead  themselves 
and  others  by  involuntary  exaggeration  or  invention.  But  this  danger  ought  not  to 
prevent  us  from  thankfully  welcoming  any  such  evidences  as  can  truly  be  found  to  the 
faithfulness  of  the  sacred  records. 

"One  such  aid  is  sometimes  sought  in  the  supposed  fulfilment  of  the  ancient 
prophecies  by  the  appearance  which  some  of  the  sites  of  Syrian  or  Arabian  cities  pre- 
sent to  the  modern  traveller.  Rut,  as  a  general  rule,  these  attempts  are  only  mischiev- 
ous to  the  cau^e  which  they  intend  to  uphold.  The  present  aspect  or"  these  sites  may 
rather,  for  the  most  part,  be  hailed  as  a  convincing  proof  that  the  S  irit  «>t  prophecy  is 
not  so  to  be  bound  down.  The  continuous  existence  of  Damascus  and  Sidon,  the  ex- 
isting ruins  of  Ascalon,  Petra,  and  Tyre,  showing  the  revival  of  those  cities  long  ai'ter 
the  extinction  of  the  powers  which  they  once  represented,  are  standing  monuments  of 
a  most  important  truth  ;  namely,  that  the  warnings  delivered  by  '  holy  men  of  old  '  were 
aimed  not  against  stocks  and  stones,  but  then,  as  always,  against  living  souls  and  sins, 
whether  of  men  or  of  nations."  —  From  Author's  Introduction. 


For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country,  and 
mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  Price. 

W.   J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER, 

27  Howard  Street,  New  York. 


Widdleton's  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Works. 


SYDNEY  SMITH'S 

WIT    AND    WISDOM. 

THE  WIT  AND  WISDOM  OF  SYDNEY  SMITH. 

Being  Selections  from  his  Writings,  and  Passages  of  his 
Letters  and  Table-talk.  With  a  Steel  Portrait,  a  Memoir, 
and  Notes.  By  E.  A.  DUYCKINCK.  Crown  Svo.  Cloth, 
extra,  $2.25;  half  calf,  $4.00. 

"When  wit  is  combined  with  sense  and  information ;  when 
it  is  softened  by  benevolence  and  restrained  by  strong  principle; 
when  it  is  in  the  hands  of  a  man  who  can  use  it  and  despise  it, 
who  can  be  witty  and  something  much  better  than  witty,  who 
loves  honor,  justice,  decency,  good-nature,  morality,  and  religion 
ten  thousand  times  better  than  wit,  —  wit  is  then  a  beautiful 
and  delightful  part  of  our  nature." — SYDNEY  SMITH. 

"  The  remarkable  union  of  good  sense  and  rich  humor  in  the  writings  of  Sydney 
Smith  renders  his  works  among  the  most  wholesome  and  refreshing  of  all  the  modern 
British  essayists.  The  geniality  of  the  man  pervades  the  intelligence  of  the  writer ; 
reviews,  sermons,  table-talk,  and  lecture  are  permeated  with  the  magnetic  wisdom  of 
a  humane  and  vivacious  character.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  a  judicious 
selection  from  Sydney  Smith's  writings  should  have  proved  highly  acceptable  as  a 
domestic  memorial  of  the  genial  churchman.  The  editor  has  done  his  work  with  rare 
skill  and  judgment,  and  the  result  is  one  of  the  most  charming  volumes.  It  is  just 
the  book  to  keep  at  hand  tor  recreation  and  suggestive  reading.  It  abounds  with  pas- 
sages of  choice  English,  laden  with  truth  and  wisdom  ;  it  sparkles  with  wit  and  abounds 
in  anecdote ;  and  is  like  a  living  presence  in  its  serene,  solid,  pleasant  spirit.  We 
know  of  no  similar  work  so  adapted  to  make  a  companion  of  as  this  felicitous  compend 
of  Sydney  Smith's  wit  and  wisdom." 


For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country,  and 
mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  Price. 

W.   J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER, 

27  Howard  Street,  New  Tork. 


Widdleton's  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Works. 


Milman's  History  of  the  Jews. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWS.  From  the  Earli- 
est Period  down  to  Modern  Times.  By  HENRY  HART 
MILMAN,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  A  New  Edition,  thoroughly 
revised  and  extended.  In  3  Volumes,  crown  8vo.  Cloth, 
$5.25;  half  calf,  $10.50. 

"  .  .  .  .  Though  the  Jewish  people  are  especially  called  the  people  of  God, 
though  their  polity  is  grounded  on  their  religion,  though  God  be  held  the  aut! 
their  theocracy,  as  well  as  its  conservator  and  administrator,  yet  the  Jewish  nation  is 
one  of  the  families  of  mankind  ;  their  history  is  part  of  the  world's  history.  The  func- 
tions which  they  have  performed  in  the  progress  of  human  development  and  civilization 
are  so  important,  so  enduring ;  the  veracity  of  their  history  has  been  made  so  entirely 
to  depend  on  the  rank  which  they  are  entitled  to  hold  in  the  social  scale  of  mankind  ; 
their  barbarism  has  been  so  fiercely  and  contemptuously  exaggerated,  their  premature 
wisdom  and  humanity  so  contemptuously  depreciated  or  denied ;  above  all,  the  bar- 
riers which  kept  them  in  their  holy  seclusion  have  long  been  so  utterly  prostrate; 
friends  as  well  as  foes,  the  most  pious  Christians  as  well  as  the  most  avowed  enemies 
of  Christian  faith,  have  so  long  expatiated  on  this  open  field,  that  it  is  as  impossible,  in 
my  judgment,  as  it  would  be  unwise  to  limit  the  full  freedom  of  inquiry. 

"  Such  investigations,  then,  being  inevitable,  and,  as  I  believe,  not  only  inevita- 
ble, but  the  only  safe  way  of  attaining  to  the  highest  religious  truth,  what  is  the  rinht, 
what  is  the  duty  of  a  Christian  historian  of  the  Jews  (and  the  Jewish  hi-t'-ry  has,  I 
think,  been  shown  to  be  a  legitimate  province  for  the  historian)  in  such  ii.. 
The  views  adopted  by  the  author  in  early  days  he  still  conscientiously  maintains. 
These  views,  more  free,  it  was.  then  thought,  and  bolder  than  common,  he  dares  to  say 
not  irreverent,  have  been  his  safeguard  during  a  long*  and  not  unreflective  life  against 
the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  philosophical  and  historical  researches  of  our  times  ; 
and  from  such  views  many,  very  many,  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  wh»m  it  has  been 
his  blessing  to  know  with  greater  or  less  intimacy,  have  felt  relief  from  pressing  doubts, 
and  found  that  peace  which  is  attainable  only  through  perfect  freedom  of  mind." — 
Extract  from  Authors  Prefact. 

Uniform  -with  " History  of  the  Jeius" 

MILMAN'S  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 
New  and  Revised  Edition.  3  Volumes,  crown  Svo.  Cloth, 
$5.25;  half  calf,  $10.50. 

And 

MILMAN'S  LATIN  CHRISTIANITY.  8  Volumes, 
crown  Svo.  Cloth,  $14.00;  half  calf,  $28.00. 


For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country,  and 
mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  Price. 

W.   J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER, 

27  Howard  Street,  New  Tork. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


f  Recetpi 


D2343    9/77 


